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 placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.
|
![]() | 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)