Talk:Drama dari Krakatau

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured articleDrama dari Krakatau 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2018.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 31, 2014Good article nomineeListed
February 13, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
February 27, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 24, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Kwee Tek Hoay's novel Drama dari Krakatau blames the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa (pictured) on deliberate damage to a Vishnu statue?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Drama dari Krakatau/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 03:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one in the next 7 days. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Lead
  • "... already already"
Plot
  • Waringin - what is Waringin, i.e. a town, a language?
  • Town... I had thought the context clear, but added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add comma to separate introductory elements:
    • "In the meantime the volcano..."
    • "Several days later he..."
    • "The following morning Moelia..." -
  • "... and Tjakra Amidjaja and Sadidjah stay behind to manage the evacuation." - Why would they stay behind to manage the evacuation, i.e. did one of them hold a leadership/managerial role in the village?
  • Mount Ciwalirang - I googled it and couldn't find anything about a real place with this name. Is it fictional or is there an alternate spelling?
  • Possibly fictional, possibly changed after the colonial period ended. No sources state this explicitly, though as you can see most Google results are in relation to the novel. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forty-four years later, Moelia, son of the Regent of Rangkas Gombang and Assistant Wedana of Sindanglaut, hears of a Baduy priest known as Noesa Brama, who has established himself and his family on Mount Ciwalirang and begun curing the sick and injured." - clunky sentence (and/and/and/and)
  • Split the first clause. Further splitting necessary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following week, the men from Palembang lie to the police, leading to Noesa Brama's arrest for planning a rebellion, then convince Retna Sari and her mother before departing for Sumatra. " - What do they convince Retna Sari and her mother to do or believe?
  • to follow them
  • "...who returns home only to find ..." - is 'only' necessary?
  • Not particularly, though it's more of a stylistic choice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Moelia informs his father, revealed to be Hasan, of the eruptions, and the regent comes over. There..." - Comes over where? And where is 'there'?
  • "Noesa Brama accepts the proposal, but after he discovers that Retna Sari and Soerijati had not willingly gone with the men from Palembang he expresses regret over the destruction of the statue. " - add comma after Palembang to set off parenthetical elements
  • Done, though a comma after "but" was also needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later, hoping that the spirits of he and his ancestors..." - How about "Later, hoping that his spirits and those of his ancestors..."
  • "Several weeks later, activity at the volcano drops, although it remains active." - Is this the end of the plot? I guess I want the story to continue!
  • Yep. That's where it ends. The final two sentences (quick translation) are "It was clear that in Krakatau there was a battle between the forces of destruction (i.e. the curse of the statue) and safety (i.e. Noesa Brahma and his ancestors). Who would finally emerge victorious"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writing
  • "In 1928 Kwee was asked..." - Add comma to separate introductory elements
  • "Ongoing activity at Krakatoa was foremost in his mind" - 'his' appears to refer to the friend vs. Kwee
  • "Hoping to keep his story ground in reality" - grounded
  • "...which in the first printing were ..." - add commas to separate parenthetical elements

More later. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "...the author was asked to prepare a "sensational" story for a film" - 'film' is never mentioned again; do we know why?
  • See the footnote in the "Writing" section. I can duplicate it so this is available from the lede too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • Mount Ciwalirang - As "Kwee was a staunch supporter of realism in literature", why would he write of a fictional mountain? I understand that you might not be able to locate an answer, but I'm scratching my head here wondering about this.
  • One obviously has to draw a line somewhere (otherwise why use fictional characters?). Honestly I'm more surprised that he was so influenced by Ibsen yet still included so much mysticism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
  • wl - Dutch East Indies (I do see it wl'ed in the infobox but a reader might not notice that)
  • "Chinese Malay works which only featured Native characters had only developed in the 1920s." - only/only; can this be reworded?
  • "Drama dari Krakatau was set in a rural area" - is set? (present tense is used throughout the paragraph)
Works cited
  • Benitez, J. Francisco B. (2004). Awit and Syair: Alternative Subjectivities and Multiple Modernities in Nineteenth Century Insular Southeast Asia (Ph.D. thesis). Madison: University of Wisconsin - it links to the The university of Hong Kong Libraries rather than to the U of Wisconsin
  • The thesis was for the U of W in Madison (on the title page). HK appears to have gotten it through ProQuest (their watermark is on the copy I downloaded). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the review. Let me know if you need me to put this on hold. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA
for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
    fair use rationales
    :
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
    suitable captions
    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good job; looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section

  • Material copied from FAC thread after the nomination was closed.

With all due respect, I disagree with Ian. When taken as a whole

MOS:PLOT seems to give all single works an exemption in this regard, I suggest that that contradiction should be fixed not followed. The avoidance of in-universe perspective is a central theme of the guideline, so what's the purpose of an exemption that apparently applies to all single works of fiction? Real world perspective is the rule not the exception, since the vast majority of fictional works are not part of a series. Why do we have the all encompassing directive of using real world perspective when writing about fictional works if this only applies to works that are part of a series? We should not write our MoS this way. Deferring to a delegate is often a wise course of action, but the delegates do not have override power in terms of the MoS, do they? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Right you are, SchroCat. I hadn't noticed that Ian closed the nom; sorry, but to respond to your comment, 1)
    WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:Real world only apply to works in a series? Wouldn't that mean that most works are exempt from the MoS prescription to use real world perspective? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 1)
    WP:OSE, and 2) That's a strawman argument. I never suggested that this needed to be repeated ad nauseum. One mention of the real world to establish the proper context in the lead, and one at the start of the Plot section is all I've argued for. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Guys, without trying to come across as peacemaker, I value Gabe's input to FAC, just as I value Crisco's and Schro's. I'm not a lawyer but to use an analogy, balancing precedent (extant FAs) with statute (MOS) can be tricky. Of course the analogy falls down a bit because much of MOS isn't policy, it's guidelines, which don't carry quite the same weight and are open to more liberal interpretation. I think, Gabe, that the emphasis on 'real world' in the MOS is, and should be taken as, applying to how WP presents works of fiction as a whole, not necessarily how the plot of a work within an article should be written. Crisco's article, taken as a whole, applies the real-world principle. One section within that whole eschews real-word perspective per the single-work clause in the MOS plot summary guideline (and IMO per common sense). Where there's room for interpretation, I would always try to respect the voice of the main editor(s) of an article, in this case Crisco. If someone wrote a plot summary in a fiction article and employed "The novel begins..." and Crisco objected, I think I would also say that there's not a black-and-white answer and that the main editor's position should be respected (this principle applies to many areas, such as citation formatting, the number of paragraphs in a lead, date format in US military articles, etc, etc, and I try to apply it universally). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as one comment, "It is 1883, and..." is very much in-universe style (it puts the reader in that frame, which is not what we should do), and the only problematic part of this summary. Using "In 1883, ..." as a replacement fixes that problem. You don't need to mention it being a novel or the like (it can be done, but not required). --MASEM (t) 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masem, if we substituted "In 1883" for "It is 1883", ho would you reconcile the rest of the sentence, which wouldn't make sense as: "In 1883, and Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You take out the word "and", problem solved. It's not difficult. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how that solves the issue of writing from an in-universe perspective? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1883, Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years" is in-universe because if you substituted any different year and noun the perspective would not change. I.e., "In 2436, Olympus Mons is stirring for the first time in 2000 years"? Nothing about this sentence sets the context as real world. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Masem, you keep repeating the assertion: "You don't need to mention it being a novel", but do any Wikipedia guidelines support this, or is this just your personal opinion? Per
    fictional character from Douglas Adams' radio, book and now film series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the first book, Trillian is introduced to the main character Arthur Dent on a spaceship. In her backstory, she was taken away from Earth when the space alien Zaphod Beeblebrox met her at a party." So, no you do not have to use the word novel, but you do need to acknowledge the real world. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

And do any guidelines insist on us using the words "in the novel"? If not, then it's a non-argument and we can all move on. Enough Gabe: you're being disruptive in this constant attack. Consensus on Drama is against you with the passing of the FAC, so drop the stick and find something constructive to do. - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that we had to use the phrase in the novel. I said that the prose needed to be grounded in the
personal attack on me. I'm a good-faith editor with some minor concerns. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • RE: "I think, Gabe, that the emphasis on 'real world' in the MOS is, and should be taken as, applying to how WP presents works of fiction as a whole, not necessarily how the plot of a work within an article should be written."
    Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include: A plot synopsis written like a historical account". You might be correct, but that only one sentence clause in the entire MoS supports your assertion makes me doubt that you are. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Question

The lead mentions that the work is sixteen chapters long, but I'm not seeing this in the article body. I probably just missed it, but if this isn't mentioned in the article body then it should be. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm starting to lose any of my good faith here. See the last line of the "Writing" section: "Drama dari Krakatau consists of sixteen chapters,[13]" Are you actually bothering to read this, or are you just picking bad faith fights for the hell of it? - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I expected that to be in publishing, since that's when the chapters are set, not during writing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??????? Chapters are set during publishing, not writing?????? Good grief! When you wrote on of your wiki articles, did you decide where to put the breaks when you wrote it, or did you leave it to someone else? Seriously?? Gabe, you're not covering yourself in glory with these comments. There are more constructive ways to spend your time, rather than doing whatever it is that you're doing. - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chapters that a writer gives their publisher are not set-in-stone. The publisher will edit and organize a manuscript to suit their tastes. I didn't say writers don't break-up their work in chapters, but the publisher has the final say before a book goes to print. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. You're bitching for the hell of it now. - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please re-read
    WP:NPA, as you are starting to make this personal against me. I assumed that the material on chapters and printing would be in the publishing section. Maybe that's wrong, but its the truth, so please stop attacking me. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Minor issues

Plot
  • "Soerijati is lost after she falls out of the carriage". What carriage? You havn't explained that she was in a carriage. This could be fixed by swapping out the definite article for an indefinite one. I.e., the → a. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because "are sent to Rangkas Gobang by carriage" would be too much detail. I'll add "they are riding in" or something similar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moelia, the son of the Regent of Rangkas Gombong and Assistant Wedana of Sindanglaut". Will most readers know what a regent or an assistant Wedana are? They will probably not be as confused by regent, but how many will know what an assistant Wedana is? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FFS, it's covered by the footnote right next to it. Have you bothered actually reading this, or are you just trolling for an argument. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moelia travels to Mount Ciwalirang to interview him". I think interview is an odd choice here; is Moelia a journalist? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try a dictionary Gabe. Not sure it insists on the word being the sole preserve of journalists. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he means to say that Moelia travels to Mount Ciwalirang to meet him. Interview seems odd; I doubt I'm the only one who might think that. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, interview. Read the article about who a camat is and what he does. Police interview witnesses. Moelia is interviewing a man who may or may not be a threat to the stability of the regional government. That you use interview in such a narrow manner does not mean the rest of the world does. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you must read the article on camat to understand the use of interview in this context, when not a single other reviewer took issue with it, then IMHO your reading is poor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a borderline
    personal attack, Crisco, and a classy editor might redact the comment. My point is that if the article's prose is confusing to a casual reader without first reading the notes and/or ancillary articles then you might have a problem with your prose, albeit a minor one. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'm not trolling, SchroCat; Crisco and I are having a discussion. Please stop with the off-topic bad faith remarks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubbish. There is nothing off topic in saying you are trolling when you are. Secondly, it's not bad faith to observe when someone is engaging in disruptive trolling behaviour. You need to walk away for a spell and think about what you're actually doing here, because it's not constructive. BTW, your comments on me "owning" this article are bad faith, off-topic and still need to be apologised for. - SchroCat (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone is trolling here its you. I feel that you are trying to bully me away from this when I have every right to comment here. So, no; I won't apologize for your inappropriate behavior. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Your reading, not you. Reading: "an interpretation" (definition 2 if you type "define reading" in Google). Merriam-Webster: 4 a : to attribute a meaning to (as something read) : interpret <how do you read this passage> b : to attribute (a meaning) to something read or considered <read a nonexistent meaning into her words>. You insist we use AGF, but I don't see it coming from you.
    Footnotes are there for a reason: to give contextual information which would be out of place in the main body, but are important to the average reader's understanding of a topic. There is no MOS requirement, and IMHO it is quite poor writing, to include parentheticals in text to explain information which is only minimally related to a topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that a camat interviews people, but was Moelia going to meet Noesa Brama as an official duty, because I got the impression it was a personal visit. Do off-duty police officers interrogate their friends? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first visit was, more or less, part of his official duty, though later ones were decidedly less so. There was a bit of background information which I omitted from the summary per
    WP:UNDUE (and I still don't believe it is worth including, as it has little influence on the main course of the plot... if someone publishes a thematic analysis with this information, that might be worth including in the discussion, but plot-wise it is undue), but I will put it here as it is relevant to your question: following the 1926 Communist rebellion (which we surprisingly do not have an article on), the Dutch colonial government was putting increased pressure on the local leaders to keep an eye on things happening in their jurisdiction. Moelia, with those orders in mind, saw that Noesa Brama was attracting large crowds of people with what were described as miraculous cures. Considering it possible that one could use such methods to amass an army, he went to check it out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "Over lunch Moelia falls in love with the priest's daughter, Retna Sari, and learns that she must marry a man of equal standing to her father, one who is "no less than the Sultan of Yogyakarta or the Sunan of Solo".[c][2]"
Is it just me or does the first pronoun refer to Moelia? Consider: "Over lunch Moelia falls in love with the priest's daughter, Retna Sari, who must marry a man of equal standing to her father", or similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does she refer to a man? Really now Gabe? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. She shouldn't refer to a man, that's why its poor syntax. Retna Sari is set-off in commas, so the pronoun is referring to Moelia, not Retna Sari. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would assume that one can understand that she refers to Retna Sari as she is the only woman in the sentence, but I guess that proves what they say about the word assume. Changed... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a little bit of inconsistency regarding the use of commas after introductory phrases. E.g., in two consecutive sentences you have: "Over lunch Moelia falls in love" and "Upon returning home, Moelia realises ". These commas are optional, but their usage should be consistent. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moelia barely has enough time to rescue the women before the mountain erupts a second time, killing the fugitives."
Unless I am confused this is the third time in the plot section that Krakatoa erupts, not the second. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second time in 1927, Gabe. That's why years are kinda important, as is paying attention to the plot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that you meant, Crisco, but its the third time in the first three paragraphs that it erupted, so its odd to me to describe it as erupting for a second time. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are the only one who would assume that "a third time" would be easier to understand. Six or seven reviewers have gone through this article, and nobody has taken issue with that, because the implicit "in 1927" is clear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the whole context, Crisco. "Before he can stop them, Krakatoa erupts again, overturning the fleeing ship. Moelia barely has enough time to rescue the women before the mountain erupts a second time, killing the fugitives." So you have "Krakatoa erupts again" followed by "the mountain erupts a second time". This is awkward, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't explicitly establish its 1927 anywhere in the section except to say "Forty-four years pass" in the second graph. In the paragraph in question—the third paragraph—there is no time reference whatsoever. I'm used to FAC reviewers expecting the time frame to be made more clear, and certainly not requiring readers to solve math problems, however simple. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't explicitly establish its 1927 anywhere in the section - And if I did you'd be complaining about "not framing a work of fiction in a RL perspective" or some damned thing like that. Furthermore, that the year is not explicit is in no way central to my point, being that readers understand that we are talking about the second eruption in a short space of time. So what are you suggesting? Repeating "again"? That's even worse. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, I'm not suggesting that we repeat again, but to have "Krakatoa erupts again" closely followed by "the mountain erupts a second time" is awkward. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that the Works Cited section has a few entries that are not actually cited to in the article, including Biran, Kwee(1980), and Siegel. These should be moved to a further reading section. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gabe, those are cited in footnotes. Please read the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. The system that I use for notes puts their cites in with the rest. I have read the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith comments

FFS Gabe, I'm wondering why you're doing this, given you supported this article at FAC. Why did you bother if you're only going to bitch about it afterwards? Surely if you had any issues or concerns about this, then the time and place to do it is at the FAC that you supported only yesterday... I'm bemused by your actions here - and even more bemused by the petty games you've chosen to play here. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a few minutes to re-read
WP:AGF. FTR, I didn't know that Ian was going to close the FAC in the middle of my review, but yes, I supported because the issues I had were not deal-breakers. Ian told me to take any further suggestions to talk, as delegates often do when a nom is closed while discussing is still occurring. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Not off topic at all: it's germane, indeed central to the argument. I know about your love of TLAs, but they are utterly immaterial when you're moving into troll territory with your disruptive edits. In future, when you decide to review an FAC, don't support before you start your review: do it at the end, and try and lose your bad faith nonsense before you even start the review. - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco, I did read it and he closed the nom before I logged-in again the next day. My point was that Ian closed it as we were still discussing several points. Is that not accurate? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are moving the goalposts, Gabe. You didn't know, now you know. Hmm... convenient. It was perfectly clear to Ian that the issues being discussed were "non-actionable", which, per the FAC instructions, the closer has the right to ignore; he also explained why he closed. You have yet to build a consensus on the issue of plot framing as you would have it, and so long as the implicit consensus still exists, I agree with Ian's judgement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • implicit consensus? Per
    WP:SILENCE: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". You are experiencing a massive AGF fail, IMO. I didn't know before Ian wrote that that he was going to close the nom and I didn't have anymore time to edit Wikipedia until after he closed it; that's all I meant. The FAC was only open for two weeks, and I've never seen one close that quickly. What's so confusing? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "I've never seen one close that quickly." Then you don't review enough. Profumo affair was quicker than this. Hiram Wesley Evans was mere days (3, if I'm not mistaken).
    If you "didn't know before Ian wrote that", why would you write that you didn't know here, and why would you not strike your support !vote or explicitly answer that you thought this needed more time?
    Your attempt to build an explicit consensus which is in line with your own opinion is clearly failing, as several people who are more familiar with writing about fiction have already opposed your wording (and if we made the discussion better known, I have no doubt that the opposition would grow). If anything, that validates my argument of an implicit consensus existing and being recognised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like you are taking this personally, which I don't understand. Please attempt to relax and AGF. I've never had one of my FACs closed in under 30 days, even when there were 5 supports and no opposes its always open for at least 30 days. I might review more if the experience were pleasant, but as with this episode its usually not. Those several people who agree with you are two or three of your Wikibuddies; no neutral party has said that I am wrong and that you are right. As far as I can tell its one sentence clause that implies that in-universe writing isn't a problem with singular works. That's a contradiction and a mistake, IMO. When one sentence clause contradicts 25 others the problem is not with the bulk, its with the exception. Why would plot summaries about all singular works be exempt from encyclopedic writing style? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


May I add a drive-by comment that I am distressed to see dissent between editors whom I admire? I haven't properly studied the rights and wrongs of the present casus belli, but everyone seems in agreement about the quality of the article, and I hope we can all rub along together. Tim riley (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its nice to know that you admire me; the feeling is mutual. I'd rather know why you stopped reviewing my articles (hint, hint), but that's another story. I absolutely agree that the article, as with all of Crisco's writing, is high-quality. I'm not convinced that the text-string:
WP:CYF in each of his plot summaries. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drama_dari_Krakatau&oldid=1207033446"