Talk:Ouw Peh Tjoa

Ouw Peh Tjoa has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 20, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Film: Southeast Asian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Southeast Asian cinema task force.

Indonesia Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

	Netherlands portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
	A Netherlands Did you know article.

A fact from Ouw Peh Tjoa appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that though it was based on a Chinese legend, advertising for The Teng Chun's Ouw Peh Tjoa emphasised its Malay dialogue?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ouw Peh Tjoa.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ouw Peh Tjoa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Crisco, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next hour or so, hopefully. Thanks in advance for the work on it -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"a named " -- a man named?

D'oh. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"silat" -- might be worth a quick definition for non-Indonesian readers ("the martial art silat")

Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

focussing-- would be "focusing" in American English, but I'm not sure about British English, which I assume is desired here

Correct in BrE (example). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This plot is adapted from Filmindonesia.or.id" -- should this say something like "this plot summary"? I assume the plot itself wasn't derived from the source at the website. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Minor clarity/prose points above.~~ Spotcheck of plot source shows no copyright issues; foreign-langauge sources accepted from experienced editor in good faith.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects appear to be covered (briefly, but hey, it's a lost film)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Overall this looks like your usual excellent contribution--just a few tweaks I need your help with, above, and this is all set to go. Cheers -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]