Jump to content

Talk:Union Films

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleUnion Films is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starUnion Films is the main article in the Union Films series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 22, 2015.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 24, 2014Good article nomineeListed
May 17, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
June 6, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
August 8, 2014Featured topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 24, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Union Films attempted to draw educated audiences by hiring a doctor to star in their film?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Union Films/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vivvt (talk · contribs) 14:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will start with the review in a while. This is my first GA review so please feel free to correct me if required.
  • Images are relevant to the topic and from Commons so no issues with those.
  • Small but nicely written article. I have couple of minor points. Assuming good faith as most of the sources are in Indonesian.
  • "an anonymous review in Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad praised the cinematography". Does not add much value as the reviewer itself is unknown.
  • Are you saying the review has little value, or the word "anonymous"? I could easily trim the latter, and the former could probably be cut as we already have a review of that film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, you need not mention "anonymous".
  • "Jo An Djan had left the company for Populair's Film." The sentence does not go in a flow.
  • "one reviewer, for the Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad," Any chance to find who is it? Same for "one reviewer, from the Soerabaijasch Handelsblad"
  • None of the reviews from the Indies that I've read (and that's quite a few, considering how many articles on these films I've written) are credited. It appears, though I don't have a reference to back me up, that there was no film criticism industry in the Indies. No awards to speak of, no critics with syndicated columns or large followings. Doesn't surprise me, really, considering how few non-Dutch residents could read.15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I will AGF here.
  • The sources "(untitled)". De Indische Courant (Batavia) and "(untitled)". The Straits Times (Singapore). Any chance to get the name?
  • They are advertisements. By their very nature, they have no headline/name. I've used this format in several FAs already, including Asmara Moerni.15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Would you mind titling it as "Advertisement"?
  • I'd prefer not to, as "Advertisement" is not the headline. The Cite News field title= is generally used for headlines, which these sources lack. Having (untitled) (or perhaps (untitled advertisement), though I prefer the simple (untitled) since it saves space) indicates that this is not the title, but rather a notation from the writer citing the advertisement. It's common to use text in parentheses like this, at least in written prose; compare such additions as [sic]. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed.
  • Wiki-link De Indische Courant, The Straits Times and University of Hawaii Press.
  • Yes. I found it very useful for most of the articles. Also, it wouldn't be over-linked for this article at least as same publisher is not being referred multiple times. I am not sure about the policy but I have been asked to do so in some of the reviews so far.
  • Thanks for the clarification. I would be useful for me in the future.

Once these issues are resolved or answered, I will be happy to promote this article to GA. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By early 1942?

[edit]

By early 1942, the government of the Dutch East Indies were concerned that Empire of Japan could invade the colony.

Since the Dutch had declared war on Japan on 8 December 1941 and Japan declared war on the Dutch on 11 January 1942, this statement should be reworded. The invasion of the East Indies had already begun in December, albeit in the non-Dutch part of Borneo. The occupation of the Dutch colony was more or less done by March, but it began in January. Srnec (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Union Films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Union Films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_Films&oldid=1207757442"