Wikipedia:Peer review/Union Films/archive1

Union Films

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to try and bring this to FAC and would like as much feedback as possible. Please note that I have been unable to find documentation on the actual business aspects of this company, and per Biran (2012) none may actually still exist.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cass

I have quickly skimmed through and this is what I have found on first glance.

• "...were established.[1] One of these was Union Films, established..." – Established/established
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "The fledgling company's first film..." – New para, new name.
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "It received positive reviews; the journalist Saeroen, for instance, wrote in Pemandangan" – redundancy of "for instance" IMO
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "marked the feature film debut of Djoewariah" – we are getting a lot of "films" or "film" words in this para.
  • Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Taking advantage of the growing intellectual movement by casting young doctor" – a young doctor?
  • Or "the", but I've used "a". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "This April release..." – why, how many other releases were there? "This", I feel, is the wrong word to use.
  • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Hu, however, remained with Union." "However" indicates a continuation of a previous sentence, but this is the start of a new paragraph?
  • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• "forced to close shop" redundency of "shop".

The problem with this, it is echoing "closed" in the next sentence now.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Reworked to avoid both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am trying to think of a better way of wording this sentence: "In a period of two years, Union released seven films. All were feature length, black-and-white works, receiving wide releases in the Dutch East Indies." I just don't think the ending – "All were feature length, black-and-white works, receiving wide releases in the Dutch East Indies" – works well. How about "In a period of two years, Union released seven films; all were feature length, made in black-and-white, and received wide releases in the Dutch East Indies."
• Would Singapore qualify under WP:OVERLINK?
  • Both done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

All very minor, a nice little read. Cassianto^talk 08:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing. It may be a little read, but its already more detailed than any single source elsewhere. I really wish more documentation had survived. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've always been impressed with your work on these Indonesian articles. You do a great job with what little there is! Cassianto^talk 08:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• "in 1940, it produced seven black-and-white films between 1940 and 1942" to avoid the repetition, you could say "then" or "its founding" instead of the second invocation of the year.

• Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

History

• The third sentence of the first paragraph could well be split.

• Tried reworking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• " in which a rich man leaves his community to suffer while a young couple try to make their way" This makes no sense to me.

• It is, admittedly, a somewhat complex plot and this summary is an oversimplification; I'll use the summary from the article proper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Taking advantage" there's just too much loaded on the front end of this sentence.

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "follows a womaniser who abuses his status to gain women's trust" his status as ... a womaniser?

• Well-born (rich uncle). Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "targeted the intelligentsia" As customers, or did they mock them in the film?

• Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "had become concerned with the possibility of an invasion " this seems a bit long-winded

• Simplified. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally

• Is there any RS that speaks to evaluate the film company? Was it an artistic advance?

• "Artistic advance" seems to have been the favourite buzzword of reviewers. Almost every review I've read has been "x film shows positive developments in the Indies film industry", with a few examples. That Union attempted, early on and consistently, to target educated Native audiences was unusual, and possibly an indication of a nationalistic ideal which Biran claims was first shown in Darah dan Doa, but none of my sources discuss this. Asmara Moerni is part of the journal article I'm working on, but you know how long publication can take, and thematic discussions are best left in articles on the films / writer anyways. Very little has been written on the studio as an entity, from what I've been able to track down, and critical commentary on its role in the development of the Indonesian film industry is even more lacking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems very nice as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for reviewing, again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

• "When the Empire of Japan occupied the Indies in March 1942, Union was closed": As written, this implies that someone closed it. Maybe make explicit?
  • Pushed it in that direction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Production increased": "Film production"? It may be worth specifying this as we have just mentioned the Great Depression.
  • Give it a try. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "and established to "improve the quality of Indonesian art"": Is this a quote from the company or from somewhere else?
  • Press release cited in Biran. Made explicit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "who convinces a stingy hajji to be more charitable": Is stingy suitably encyclopaedic?
  • Tried "miserly". It's pretty much his defining character trait for most of the work: he accumulates wealth, but never spends any of it for the betterment of his fellow villagers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Djoewita was no longer acting for the company at this point. As such, the studio hired Raden Soekarno for the leading role of this late 1941 release.": I don't think "as such" quite works here.
  • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Union was closed, never to reopen.": Like the lead, this reads as if they were forced to do so. Could this be clarified?

• Biran isn't quite explicit about who closed the film companies, although considering his use of collocation, the Japanese occupation's censorship, and their treatment of ethnic Chinese, I don't think there's much doubt it was the Japanese forces. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm assuming from your opening comment, and the reply to Wehwalt above, that there is very little other information that exists. We seem quite light on details, but as usual I don't see this as being a problem as long as we have covered everything that is known. And as usual, it reads very well and looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• When I was at Sinematek Indonesia, the only internal documentation they had was from Java Industrial Film; this was recovered from the personal documentation of The Teng Chun. This is, sadly, not unexpected; the first attempts to document the early film industry and preserve early films were in the 1970s, whereas the documents from Union and other companies had to survive a world war/foreign occupation, four years of the Indonesian national revolution, and 30+ years in a hot, humid climate which has almost (some sacred manuscripts are well treated, but that's about it) no tradition of archiving. I'm not ruling out something surviving, but there's no indication where this could be, nor is there anything which cites such material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

History

• "directed by new hires": is 'new hires' encyclopaedic?
  • I'd argue that it is, as it succinctly yet neutrally replaces "two recently hired individuals" or another more traditional phrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Jo An Djan having left": would "after Jo An Djan left" work a little better? (Your call, no bis deal one way or the other)
  • Tweaked, although I took a third option. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Image caption: "A Dutch-language ad". I think "ad" may be a bit too informal for an encyclopaedia
  • Good point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• "The film, in which of a young man who convinces a miserly hajji to be more charitable,": needs a tweak or two here
  • I'll admit it, I chuckled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• "marked the debut of Djoewariah": acting debut may be useful?
  • Film debut would be safest, as it was quite common for stage actors to enter cinema at the time, and the fact that she had stage roles soon after the occupation began suggests she had previous stage experience. However, repeating "film" would be terrible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Djoewita was no longer acting for the company at this point": had she left? If so, perhaps, "Djoewita had left the company by this point" may be a little more clear (I initially thought she had moved into a non-acting role)
  • Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing more: as usual a high-quality, specialist article which will deserve its gold star shortly; please drop me a note when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)