# Talk:Tiga Dara

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiga Dara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you right kindly. I look forward to your comments. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
"This news sparks Nenny titillation and Toto's jealousy." This needs to be fixed, I think.
Fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
"sink deeper into debt" Just a little thing, but it's a bit odd to say this without providing a little context. Or are the next few lines the context? If so, perhaps it should be reordered a little.
Nixed for now; going into all of the company's debts would take a very long footnote. Perfini basically started its existence in debt (see Darah dan Doa; they were staying in lodgings they couldn't pay for) and things never really looked up from there. I have a newspaper article here that says the company's studio was ultimately repossessed in 1960. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
As a general comment, you mention a lot of films which you don't bother linking; I assume you've concluded that they're not notable? There's nothing wrong with redlinks.
To avoid an overabundance of redlinks, I'd avoided linking the films. Changed now; all of Perfini's films are linked, as is Ini Kisah Tiga Dara which is notable by pre-release standards. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I assume the blockquote is your translation? It ends in a proposition, which jarred with me a little.
Yes, my translation. Switched word order. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
"Ismail attempted to reassert himself as a director of quality non-commercial films through Pedjuang" Two little things: I understand a "non-commercial" film as a film not made for profit; this would mean that lots of art films and the like which never intend to make much money would still not be "non-commercial" strictly speaking. Second, is there a reason you don't mention the year in-text?
Year and English title added. For "non-commercial"... as noted in the article, Tiga Dara has still been considered a quality film by subsequent generations. Hence the need for an adjective here. Any recommendations for an alternative wording? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I note that in the lead you say that the film has "themes which remain relevant for modern Indonesian society", but in the article body you cite a source from 1991. Perhaps this could be slightly rephrased? "themes which remained relevant in Indonesian society over the following decades", perhaps.
"In a press conference, the film's director, Nia Dinata, stated that she had enjoyed watching Tiga Dara as a child and that she remained awed by the film's beauty and continued relevance." - I've moved the bit about continued relevance up to the first paragraph of the section. (Source sentence: "tema cerita yang masih relevan sampai sekarang" (themes which are still relevant now."
"Several films have remade or been influenced by Tiga Dara." This doesn't quite work.
Moved the been. D'oh! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No complaints about the sourcing, but I am concerned about your use of a non-free image in the lead when we have such a great free image of the three sisters. Could that not be used in the infobox? Relatedly, could you perhaps explain more clearly what makes that photo PD?
I am using the non-free image in the infobox for two reasons. One, it has the title of the film (unlike the three sisters image), and two, it has been reused (in a modified form) to advertise the restored film (example here), meaning that it has a high recognisability factor. The image of the three sisters is a promotional image first released in 1957 (and thus PD in both Indonesia and the US) and taken from a PD book on the subject of film (no declaration of copyright, which is required for Indonesian government works to have a copyright). I've tagged accordingly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm struck by the lack of any critical views of the film; I appreciate, however, that these things simply may not be available.
I haven't been able to find any contemporary reviews, be it in modern books or in the film magazines I have. I'm sure there are some out there, and I'll be updating as I find them (Darah dan Doa is in the same situation). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a really strong article, and I've no doubt I'll be promoting soon. If you are looking towards FA status, you may want to think about expanding a little on the remakes (reception, etc), if that is possible (also, I'm not sure I understand precisely what Peringatan 20 Tahun Wafatnya H. Usmar Ismail Bapak Perfilman Indonesia (1971–1991) is; a film? A book? A pamphlet? A report?). I made some small edits; please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A booklet, published by the Indonesian Film Festival committee for the 1991 Indonesian Film Festival. Anwar later reused some of his writing in his book Petit Histoire (2008), which is more readily available, but since I consulted the booklet I'm citing that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy that this is basically where it needs to be for GA status. I think I could quibble a bit further about some of the wording, and I'm still not completely sold on the lead image, but the article doesn't have to be perfect for GA purposes. As a closing thought, perhaps you could use "(pamphlet)" after the title of the references I was struggling with. I trust you to know your own citation style, though. Very good, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Not a pamphlet, but a booklet for those three. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

according to netflix this film was categorized as drama, not comedy. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:AC7D:5CE8:FC7C:2577 (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)