Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of works by Kwee Tek Hoay/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of works by Kwee Tek Hoay[edit]
List of works by Kwee Tek Hoay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is ready. Kwee was one of the most proficient Chinese Indonesian writers, and this bibliography (I believe) does his oeuvre justice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 23:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments on lede
|
- Support – good work. Zia Khan 23:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - on style and structure. For consistency, shouldn't that be pp. 306–25 where Sidharta's book is sourced under 'Works cited', and not pp. 306–325? Lemonade51 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Usual solid stuff from Crisco. Just two questions, it maybe all or nothing, but I thought I'd ask anyway:
- Are you using ref 1 and ref 4 to cover for the lack of citation at the end of the first para?
- Yes. Each citation is for the translation mentioned. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ISBN's in "Works cited" don't follow a consistently formatted order, should they? For instance, we have 3-3-3-3-1, 3-3-4-2-1, etc..
- The ISBNs seem to all be 13 digit, so they are standardised. Nio's book was published in 1962, and I am unaware of any Indonesian books from the time which had ISBNs... the OCLC is given instead, which is necessarily of a different format. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you using ref 1 and ref 4 to cover for the lack of citation at the end of the first para?
--CassiantoTalk 21:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.