Talk:Lily van Java
![]() | Lily van Java is currently a Theatre, film and drama good article nominee. Nominated by — Crisco 1492 (talk) at 08:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
|
![]() | Film Unassessed | ||||||
|
![]() | Indonesia B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Lily van Java/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 05:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Cheers, TBrandley 05:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Infobox: Add actors per production section
- Not done exactly as you suggested, but noted
- Lede: film. En-dash should be em-dash after that "film"
- Either is acceptable, per WP:MDASH.
- Lede: "Details on its cast and performance are contradictory, although the film is recognised as the first of a long series of ethnic Chinese-produced films in the country". Any reference?
- In #Release and reception, but I'll cite as well.
- Lede: "It is likely lost." → "It is likely a lost film."
- Done
- Premise: Wow, very small. Any way of expanding?
- I'll take another look, but I don't have high hopes. Pareh had the same issue.
- Nothing in Biran or Said; Biran just adds "the film had a simple story and showed a lot of tennis" and Said quotes an earlier work by Biran which says the same thing.
- I'll take another look, but I don't have high hopes. Pareh had the same issue.
- Production: Missing comma before "respectively"
- Done.
- Production: "General Motors" is missing "(GM)" at the end, as per MOS:ACRO
- Not done, as the acronym is not actually used.
- References: "Footnotes" and "Bibliography" should be actual sub-sections per MOS:ACCESS.
- Done.
Though the article is small, because its lost, its still pretty solid. That's all above. On hold for now. TBrandley 02:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK. This article looks good. It'll pass. Congrats. TBrandley 14:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)