The only caption that I find issue with is the caption in the infobox. As it stands, it is really not necessary. If you want a caption, I would include one similar to: "The entrance to the museum (or monument) including two public boards with the latest editions of local newspapers." Just my opinion.
The monument consists of an old society building, constructed in 1918, and several subsequent expansions; the complex is listed as a Cultural Property of Indonesia. This seems like a run-on sentence. I would split it into two separate sentences at the semicolon.
Its facilities include a multimedia room, free-to-read newspapers, and a library. The sentence does not need the word its. Should read: "Facilities include..."
The building in which the National Press Monument is now housed was constructed sometime in 1918... Do you know more specifically when the building was constructed? If not I would remove the word "sometime."
In the final paragraph of the History section, David Kristian mentions that the museum is rarely visited. Is this prior to 2013? In the lead it says the museum was visited over 26,000 times and again at the end of this paragraph. That equates to about 500 visits per week. That may not be a huge number, but for a focused, single-topic museum, that does not seem "rarely visited."
Have massaged the prose. Last I checked, in 2012 its target was about 10,000 visitors, so that's a two-fold increase in a year (source). It appears that most of their visitors come during specific exhibitions, but I don't have a source which breaks down the timing. When I went it was pretty darn empty... of course, I showed up just as it opened. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you can source it, I would include that figure. Its a major jump from 2012 to 2013, and it is most definitely important enough to include. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why this section and the Facilities section are separate. They each talk about specific parts of the facilities. I propose they should be merged unless there is a specific reason to not.
The museum holds over a million newspapers and magazines from both before and after the Indonesian National Revolution... Throughout this section you show this to be true, but the notability of this museum is not that it has more current holdings. I would prefer changing "both before and after" to "including content from prior to."
You're right; content is a poor choice of word. Saying before and after something to me seems a little odd. It also leaves out the "during" which I would think be an important period in the history of the press. It read better to say "... from prior to the Indonesian National Revolution to current covering various parts of the Indonesian archipelago." -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The museum also holds various artefacts which belonged to journalists from period to period. Remove "from period to period" as its redundant. I would recommend adding notable before journalists.
How is it redundant, and what is it redundant to? Bakrie Soeriatmadja was active in the 1920s, Hendro Subroto was active through the 70s and 80s, Udin was killed in 1995, etc. We could go with "pre- and post-colonial Indonesia", if you prefer. Notable is a weasel word, which I try to avoid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is redundant to itself. Of course it holds artefacts from period to period, when else would it hold artefacts from? This use of the word period is used like "period of time", so if you replaced period with an actual period of time, it would be saying: it holds artefacts from one year to another year. Maybe a better way to say it would be: "...holds various artefacts which belonged to journalists from multiple historical periods." -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are Video Profil Monumen Pers Nasional [Video Profile of the National Press Monument] (in Indonesian). Jakarta: Ministry of Communications and Information. 2013. and Profil Monumen Pers Nasional 2013 [Profile of the National Press Monument, 2013] (brochure) (in Indonesian), Ministry of Communications and Information, 2013. the same source? They seem extremely similar. (The second is not attached to any specific references)
Thanks for the clarification; I just wanted to make sure, as they are formatted so similar. Also, as I cannot speak, read or write in Indonesian, I'll WP:AGF on the content of those sources. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. Regarding image of the museum, copyright in Indonesia on buildings lasts for 50 years after the death of the author, or 50 years after realization for an anonymous or group work. As the life span of Mas Abu Kasan Atmodirono does not seem to be known (not a rare occurrence in pre-Independence Indonesia), I'm pretty sure this building fell out of copyright under current laws in 1968; he would have had to live until 1965 or later for this building to still be in copyright in Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I once again just wanted to verify on the image. I assumed there was nothing wrong with the image copyright, as if there would have been major question, it would have been brought up in the WP:FPC process. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most everything above seems to be addressed and I once again appreciate your patience in this review. As I stated in the beginning of this review, I am "in training" and my mentor/recruiter Christine is working with me on this. She found a few issues that I did not see on my first read through that should be addressed:
Although the lead is long enough, it does not give a full overview of the article per MOS:INTRO. A few more sentences covering the whole article should be included.
That is rather unclear... what key content is missing from the lede? Length on its own is not a representation of coverage (see Adam Levine for an example of what I mean). I've added a bit, but I do think the current lede already touches on the main points in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not not well versed enough to give you the best answer. My mentors exact words were "The lead is long enough, but it doesn't give an overview of the article; see MOS:INTRO. I suggest that you direct the editor to add a few sentences so that it does so." My reason for bringing it up is that the lead covers the facility and the holdings, but does not touch on the history save for saying that it was built in 1918. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've added a clause saying "1978, more than 20 years after it was first proposed," as well as the fact about the Reporters Association of Indonesia. The other two uses are not pertinent to the complex's current use as a museum. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a standard format for which headline is better when it comes to description or facilities. My mentor and I prefer facilities, but if your preference is description, I'm happy with it staying.
I've stuck with "Description" for all my museum articles, as the title "facilities" does not include the location or general architecture of a museum. (i.e. how is "located at 59 Gajah Mada Street in Surakarta, Central Java" a facility?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personal preference, IMHO the location of the facility is part of knowing about the facility in that if you take the same building and put it in a different location, the facility is completely different. Since you keep all of your articles with the header description, I agree with you that it should stay as such, for the sake of consistency. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the holdings section, part of the second sentence on the last paragraph does not make sense and may have an error: "...a shirt in which Hendro Subroto was show while covering the Indonesian occupation of East Timor in 1975..." I'm not really sure what that is supposed to say.
Everything looks great! Great job on the article, one more thank you for your patience. This article now passes and is now a Good Article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! In regards to Christine's comment "The last sentence in the above-mentioned 4th paragraph is also unclear; is there any information about why the artefacts were being collected and not placed in the museum?", it is the acquisition process that is ongoing; I've reworded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
