Template:Did you know nominations/Setangan Berloemoer Darah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Setangan Berloemoer Darah[edit]

Created by Crisco 1492 (talk). Self nominated at 08:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

  • DYK check says that it is not 5x expanded but it was created today and it is longer than 1500 characters (3817). As a film academic, I found this hook really interesting. QPQ has been done. It is sourced to a book which I'll assume is referenced accurately. Symbol confirmed.svg  — ₳aron 10:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
ALT1*. An extremely interesting article but the hook doesn't read properly, sorry. It's the "in Indonesian history" bit at the end. How about:
... that Setangan Berloemoer Darah was the second novel to be adapted to Indonesian film?
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I just looked over the page briefly. Since when is a master's thesis a reliable source? And the whole Plot section follows the master's thesis line by line – it should be rewritten and shortened considerably. Yoninah (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed enough hooks to know how to do them, Yoninah. Of course a masters thesis is reliable, especially if it has been published, which in this case it clearly must have. I have a masters degree and I have to say if you had of said that directly to me I would have been highly offended.  — ₳aron 10:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Fine, I won't argue the point. But if the information is common knowledge, why can't you find other sources to verify it?
  • The incomplete review refers to the fact that you only checked the newness and the length. What about verifying the hook and seeing it cited in the article? What about close paraphrasing? What about a QPQ check? Yoninah (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Why don't you go back and read my first comment passing the hook, then you will see that you have been too hasty in your condemnation of my incompetence.  — ₳aron 11:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Biran supports that this was adapted from a novel (citing Nio, for what it's worth), but he does not explicitly state it to be the second such film (though one could imply that it is, since the only one he mentions to be adapted from a novel before Setangan Berloemoer Darah was Eulis Atjih). As the thesis source is a little more explicit, I used it. Owing to the Indonesian style of defending master's theses – with a review board in front of which one must defend the thesis, rather than one simply receiving the approval of a thesis adviser – I considered it to (possibly) be more reliable than WP:SCHOLARSHIP would imply with its final sentence; the names and signatures (read: proof of approval) of the board in included in the thesis as well. I didn't say "common knowledge"; I said "not controversial". I doubt that most non-specialists could even tell you the name of this book. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the explanation, Crisco 1492. So you're deducing that it's the second film adaptation based on the release dates cited in Woodrich, right? That seems reasonable. What would you like to do about the hook and the anonymous ALT1? The original hook looks fine to me, BTW. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think ALT1 is Aaron's. It's okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg OK, all issues have been resolved. Thanks for shortening the plot summary. Hook ref verified and cited inline. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your as of yet non-existent apology, Yoninah.  — ₳aron 12:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I apologize for missing your approval of the hook cite and the QPQ; it just wasn't worded in the way I'm used to seeing. I'm also sorry that you minded a second reviewer looking this over. Yoninah (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with a second reviewer coming in. However, I do have a problem with a second reviewer coming in and saying that my review is incomplete, ignoring my response, and then not apologising due to his or her realisation that he or she is wrong in saying so.  — ₳aron 12:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)