Talk:Trance and Dance in Bali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trance and Dance in Bali/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) at 10:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking this on, I'll respond promptly to any queries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg

Comments[edit]

Prose#1[edit]

An interesting (an quite amazing article)

Thank you, yes, there are few more remarkable topics in dance than this.
  • by the anthropologists Margaret Mead — (1) I'd remove 'the' (2) try to avoid linking two adjacent words
    • In British English we refer to people and their professions in this way. Not easy to avoid the linking here.
  • but also for what it does not show. — ?, what does it not show?
    • Added.
  • The Significance section is bit jumbled. We have the first three paragraphs discussing about the legacy of the film. The Fourth paragraph has a bit of history. The fifth one is again on the legacy.
    • Reorganised as suggested.
  • I'd expect the structure/sections of the article to be like:
    • "History" — dealing with the background of those two anthropologists, their trip, recording of the documentary, etc.
      • Added.
    • "Synopsis" — describing what is shown in the film. The temple, the people, the dance, their clothing, the accompanying text, etc. We can at-least get 2 paragraphs on this.
      • Added.
    • "Publication" — just a sentence or two would be fine, mentioning the year of its publication.
      • Done.
    • "Historic significance" — the most of the text currently present in the article should be in this section.
      • Renamed.
  • There is a lot to be said on the documentary. You already have cited 2-3 scholar works, which is nice. But few other sources such as the following would likely help you to expand the article for the above mentioned points.
    • Haley, Jay; Richeport-Haley, Madeleine (2015). "Autohypnosis and Trance Dance in Bali". International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. Routledge. 64 (4): 455–468. doi:10.1080/00207144.2015.1062701. ISSN 0020-7144.
    • Belo, Jane (1960). Trance in Bali. Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/belo94442. ISBN 9780231944427.
  • The citation above is something I think a major scholar work on the subject which will help with bit of background. Currently, I am not confident if the article addresses all "major aspects" of the article. Do you wish to work on these issues during the review? If so, I'll be happy to put on hold till then, and continue later. If not, I'll fail for now and let you renominate later. But I will wait for your reply! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Added material using new sources, which I hope you'll agree goes a long way to addressing your concerns. Jay Haley is interesting but is basically interested in the hypnosis side of things. Belo is both out of print and not available online; its scope is clearly far wider than this one dance; its 1960 date and the fact that it has a foreword by Mead suggest it would not offer a fully modern take on the film: it would be nice to see it but not essential. Ponech 2021 uses the film as an example to argue about objectivity in non-fiction films. Seckinger 1991 reviews the film from the viewpoint of late-20th century anthropology, a useful article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prose#2[edit]

The article is much, much better after doubling the prose size. Few optional suggestions:

  • but also for what it does not show, such as the conversation of the dancers. — this still doesn't flow well.
    • Reworded.
  • anthropologists is linked twice in the prose. First in the History section, second in the Historical significance section.
    • Fixed.
  • taking some 25,000 photographs — 'some' should be 'avoid' to avoid repetition.
    • Done.
  • according to Ira Jacknis — "according to anthropologist Ira Jacknis"
    • Glossed.
  • Trance and Dance in Bali sets out, Geertz argues, a "Geertz argues that Trance and Dance in Bali sets out a"
    • Done.

Thats is it! Looking great!

Thanks!

Images[edit]

References[edit]

  • All good.
    • Noted.

Putting on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh – Many thanks, I've addressed all the comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, Passing! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]