# Talk:The Kampung Boy

In the next few weeks, I am going to rewrite this article, expanding (more than five-fold) with reliable sources according to the policies and guidelines of this project.  The structure is likely going to be the same.  Hopefully, this can turn to be a better topic than the mess at its stage of creation.  Jappalang (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Jappalang (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Kampung Boy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of November 4, 2010, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
Would strongly suggest some copyediting from editors previously uninvolved with the article.
The lede should be broken up into (4) paragraphs, the wording in the lede should be made a bit more direct and succinct.
Story - change sect header name to Plot.
Kampung Boy: Yesterday and Today - Paragraphs in this sect - could they be broken up a bit into smaller paragraphs?
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.
3. Broad in coverage?: The article is indeed wide in breadth and covers a good amount of the subject matter in relevant subsection breakdowns.
4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral and matter-of-fact presentation, no concerns with NPOV.
5. Article stability? No significant issues here, upon inspection of article edit history and talk page edit history. Article edit history shows revisions deleted - what was that about?
6. Images?: Images check out okay, with appropriate rationales on image pages - but are (4) fair use images really necessary? Could one or two be removed? Are there any free use images that could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for use, instead?
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
Is there any particular sentences/phrases that are awkward?  I have asked User:Awadewit if she could come take a look and a couple of examples would help us to refine the article.  Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not think it should be broken up into 4 paragraphs.  The total number of characters in this article is 15,300 without spaces and 18,260 with spaces.  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Length recommends two paragraphs for such numbers.  I feel breaking it up any further leads to a stubby and fragmented read.  Are there examples of how the wording can be "more direct and succinct"?  Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done  Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Each paragraph has about the same number of characters/sentences as others in the articles.  Is the issue with the paragraph next to the image?  Because the image is quite wide, the paragraph is squeezed and might be perceived as chunky, but substantially it is the same amount of words as the others.  Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
6. Images?:
The books' author is alive and well, and as they are not US publications, any material from them are copyrighted.  The images used here, except for the identifying cover shot, are backed by substantial critical commentary (not just descriptive but analytical of their content).  I am not certain there a specific image that can be removed without a loss of comprehension from just reading the text.  Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a general overall feeling that a third-party editor doing some copyediting could help to improve the writing quality. Did you try WP:GOCE and/or posting to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects?
Okay, I suppose that is alright for now, would recommend a future peer review to see what others think about it.
Thank you!
I took another look, this is probably fine.
Have you tried contacting the author of the book for a free use image of the author? I still think four fair-use images is a bit too much, I would recommend removing at least one of the fair-use images.
-- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
As said, I have asked Awadewit if she is willing to have a go at it.
As for images of the author, I have a few of them (gathered during the writing for Lat).  However, they are not really suitable here in view of context.  This article is on his book(s), and much of it does not really focus on him (hence, seeing him does not really add much to the reader's comprehension of the book).  In your opinion, which image(s) in the article does not satisfy the ten criteria of WP:NFCC?  Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. Have you posted to WP:GOCE and talk pages of relevant WikProjects to try to get some other copyeditors? It would be helpful to try to inquire with multiple parties to get more than one individual to copyedit the article, as a previously un-involved, third-party editor.
Of course, free use images of the author (one would do) would be relevant to use in any article about a work by that said author.
As the GA Reviewer, I am stating to you here on the GA Review subpage, as part of the GA Review, that I feel that having four fair-use images is a bit excessive. I am respectfully requesting of you, as part of this GA Review, that you please remove one of the four fair-use images. Thank you.
-- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not asking GOCE since I have no direct experience with them (and adding on, I have heard there are members of the GOCE whose quality have been questioned—Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants#Copyediting the list of copyeditors—so it would be a crapshoot and bad luck, worse for this review, if the prose was made worse by a less experienced member); I prefer having a copy-editor whose quality I am familiar with and is widely recognised.  She has not touched this article or subject either.  The whole point of asking for a copy-edit is to improve the quality of prose in this article and I think that by asking Awadewit I am advancing to that goal.
I have to disagree on that for the reason I stated above.
Per Wikipedia policy, the applicability of fair use is dependent on the fulfillment of all ten-points of the WP:NFCC, not the amount of images used (side ref: WP:NFC); a large amount of "fair use" images is likely, but not necessarily, a sign that several images are not compliant with the requirements.  Because I am the uploader of these images and have written up the fair use rationales, I would be of the mind that they comply with policy; I am "personally involved" so as to speak and thus it is hard for me to see which image fails the requirement and has to go.  As the reviewer and "outside observer", you would have the neutral point of view so as to speak and can offer a more objective opinion of which images are not compliant; we can then review those images, and rewrite the rationale so as to satisfy the criteria or remove said images.  Jappalang (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, we can see how the copyedit from this requested copyeditor goes, and reevaluate it after that point.
If free use images exist of the author, then one should be included in this article. As GA Reviewer, as part of this GA Review, I am recommending that this be done.
File:Kampung Boy - Today by Lat.jpg = this image seems relevant enough, and can stay. :) File:The Kampung Boy by Lat.png = this fair use image is not discussed critically in the article body text of a significance to necessitate remaining in the article, it should be removed. File:Town Boy by Lat.png = this image is not necessary to convey the descriptive analysis that is given in text already, it should be removed.
-- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Awadewit has gone through the article.  Please have a look.
Per Wikipedia:Good article criteria (note 6): "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided."  I believe an image of Lat is not truly pertinent to this article (if readers would like to see what Lat looks like, I encourage them to read his article, whose link is available in this one).  I do not believe an exclusion of Lat's picture would constitute a failing of WIAGA.
File:The Kampung Boy by Lat.png has been pointed out by Stevenson specifically for commentary on the book's "understated affection for family, neighbours and village life", a theme supported by Shuttleworth.  The image is now next to the relevant commentary for easier association.  I have removed File:Town Boy by Lat.png.
--  Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyediting - Thanks, I have seen some good quality copyediting has taken place.
Stability - My initial question about this in the original GA Review, was not answered or explained.
Images - File:The Kampung Boy by Lat.png - This image should be removed. It does not need to be in the article for the reader to understand the concept, and can be instead explained in-text itself. It should be replaced by a free use image of the author.
Conception - Please change the name of this sect to Background. This sect is exactly where a free use image of the author is directly relevant to the text of the article, and should be added. -- Cirt (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Stability: My apologies, I missed your question.  In short, this namespace was created through Wikipedia:Requested articles.  The original proposal was, however, about the animation and was a total hoax (the entire article was fake and frankly, insulting to the subject and the integrity of this project) with a single reference to IMdB.  An administrator gave a cursory check, took the hoaxer at his word on good faith (even though the IMdB information contradicts the proposed content) and created the article.  Later editors added valid information about the graphics novel (the source for the animation) but kept the hoax about the animation; the hoaxer also reverted someone who discovered his hoax.  The revisions with the hoax content was eventually deleted and because the novel was more notable than the animation, this article is about the book per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  As far as stability is concerned, there are no more "new" information that concerns the book (other than updating reprint numbers if necessary), and there are no "valid" content disputes.
Images: File:The Kampung Boy by Lat.png has been removed.
Images and Conception: I disagree.  "Conception" is a valid header for a section that tells of how the book came about.  I see nothing that is inaccurate with using this header.  Furthermore, I have already stated my opinion about the Lat image above and I remain adamant on this.  To me, it is as pointless as expecting to see a photograph of a cow in Cheese simply because the diary product comes from that animal.  Jappalang (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


### Update: GA passed
Update: GA passed. Thank you for responding to (most) of the GA Review recommendations. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the requested copyedit. Please revert any changes that you do not like. I apologize if I inadvertently ended up changing the article from Malaysian English to American English. Many of the phrases that sounded "wrong" to me may simply be a result of my unfamiliarity with Malaysian English. One content note: If you are intending to take this to FAC in the future, I would suggest adding a "Themes" section. There is certainly enough material to create one and any piece of literature should be described in terms of "genre" and "themes". The description of the genre is here in the art section, but the thematic material is scattered throughout the article. Thanks for inviting me to work on this article - I didn't know about this book before, but I was so intrigued that now it is on my Amazon.com Wish List! :) Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)