# Talk:Pekarangan

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Rumah di Ubud Bali.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead picture changed. Dhio-270599  04:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pekarangan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 16:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose is good, I see that you had it copy edited previously and I made a few changes as well.  The biggest remaining issue is that you tend to use passive phrases like "are suggested" or "are assumed", I left comments below showing how to fix that.
A comment: I've been trying to incorporate various forms of hedging language, since the early version of the article was biased and I have to change it. However, I should have learned more about the context of its use (e.g. "might" is good in an encyclopedia; "are suggested" and similar passive forms are probably not). Thank you for making sense of that. :) Dhio-270599  04:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Great job with the references, I like how you have them formatted and you use high-quality scholarly sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
See the note below about the image in the lead.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Looks good, I know you've put a lot of effort into this article and I like that you got a peer review before bringing it to GAN.  It's close to meeting the GA standard, there are just a few issues, explained in the comments below.  I'm placing it on hold for one week so you can look at the comments and make corrections. (I won't have computer access until next Monday, I'll look at it then.) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for being diligent about making these corrections! I think we're all set now and I'm happy to pass as GA.  (p.s. I noticed one more thing, I don't want to hold up the review but for future improvement: when you mention the talun system in the history section, please briefly explain what the talun system is.) --Cerebellum (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for passing the article as GA!  I've added a short description of talun as well. :) Dhio-270599  13:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


### Comments
Lead: Why does the image in the lead say it is a possible example of a pekarangan?  I remove the word possible from the caption, or use a different image if you're not sure that's a pekarangan.
In many cases, it's hard to define a clear line between a pekarangan and surrounding mixed gardens (the "kebun-talun") in villages (Stoler, p. 85 (first page), footnote 2). In the lead image, clove trees dominate; it feels like it might resemble a mixed garden since plants in mixed gardens are generally less diverse than pekarangans (Christanty et al., p. 137, table 6.1). However, the pictured garden is adjacent to a house (a very "pekarangan" thing) and the image is, until now, the best picture I can find that could represent a rural pekarangan, with free license. If I may suggest an alternative, that might be adding a [note 1] and using said statement from Stoler. But if it's not allowed, the best thing I can do is removing the "a possible example" phrase from it.
No issues with adding a note, that sounds good to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Caption: I changed the order of the adjectives in the first image's caption, just so you know English has specific rules about adjective order.
Thank you for the edit!
Term: I don't think the explanation of the name should be in a note, I can see why you did it though cause it's not obvious where that information fits in the article.  What do you think about creating a new section called "Etymology" or "Name" right after the lead, with that information in it?  I would also change "described to be widely used" to simply "widely used".
A really good idea! The Ashari reference described the term's multi-intrerpretations [in its scope as a home garden], so having a section for its etymology is certainly a good idea -- I'll do this soon.
Made the section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhio270599 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
P2KP: When you mention this program in the lead, you should include the full name not just the initials, like you do in "Pekarangan programs".
Done.
Plants: I would change the phrase "are suggested to be more dominant", it is written in the passive voice so we don't know who is doing the suggesting.  I recommend either simply "are more dominant" or something like "According to Christanty, perennials are more dominant".
Done; using the second alternative.
Plants: The sentence beginning with Few plants propagate without intentional human intervention is confusing to me, should it say Most plants propagate?
Thank you for pointing this out! Done.
Animals: For the paragraph about the fish ponds, I would remove This might be the reason, and just start that sentence with Villagers avoid.  It sounds too tentative otherwise.
Done.
Animals: Is suggested to be higher than that of teak forests - again, it's unclear who made that suggestion.  You should either use the name of the scholar who says that, or if it's generally accepted just change to Is higher than that of teak forests.
Done.
Animals: I couldn't quite understand the sentence beginning with The low level of plant diversity, consider revising. I thought we were talking about bird diversity not plants, maybe it should be something like: The pekarangans used for the Jambi study had unusually low levels of plant diversity, which may account for the results.  Or you could just remove that sentence I don't think you need it.
Done; exactly as per your alternative.
Ecology: For the canopy section, are there really any other vertical forces effecting the soil besides raindrops?  If not, you could change that first sentence to just functions as a protection from raindrops.
Done; exactly as per your alternative.
Uses: I couldn't understand the sentence about Stoler's u-shaped curve, but I'm not sure if there's a solution for that.  Maybe it's just a hard concept to grasp without seeing the graph. Can you think of any other way to explain it?
Can "rock bottom" or "lowest point" be a good alternative? The alternative might be "Ann Stoler argued that as a rural family acquire more area of rice field, garden use become less intense, up until the owned rice field reached 2,000 square meters (22,000 sq ft). From the point, garden use starts to increase. Such size of the rice field is considered as the minimal requirement for a family to fulfill its rice needs."
Yes, that alternative is easier for me to understand. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. Dhio-270599  23:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Sociology and economy: I would change assumed to be mainly developed to are mainly developed.
Done.
Culture: You should explain who Abdoellah is, change that sentence to something like According to the anthropologist Oekan Abdoellah.
Done; exactly as per your alternative.
Culture: Could you explain what it means for the pawongan area to be regarded as identical to human life? For a reader unfamiliar with the culture it's hard to understand that concept.
Erased -- the concept is already mentioned: "pawongan (middle, body, neutral)".
History: Per MOS:DECIMAL, the table showing the distribution of pekarangan areas should use decimals, not commas.
Done.
History: Note #2 seems contradictory to me, the article text says that government showed little interest in extraction of garden yields, but then the note says that they were taxed.
The original quote from the Michael Dove (pp. 159-160) source goes like this:
I suggest that the reason why home gardens are difficult to study — their diversity and complexity — also makes them difficult to exploit, by anyone other than their owner, on a systematic and large-scale basis. I suggest, that is, that the gardens' complexity makes it difficult for any central authority to extract a portion of their produce. It is relatively easy for a central authority to extract a portion of the yield of a rice field, which produces a crop of a single species, during a limited time, once or twice a year. It is a far different matter to extract a portion of the yield of a home garden, containing a dozen different species or more, all maturing at different times throughout the year.4 I believe that the home garden evolved on Java as it did at least in part because of its inherent non-susceptibility to extraction. (.......) Since Java has been characterized throughout its history by extremely centralized governments dependent on the extraction of agricultural revenue from rural communities, this explains why the home garden developed to the extent that it did on Java. The role played by the home garden in sheltering a significant portion of agricultural income from extraction also explains the otherwise puzzling ritual and cultural de-emphasis (by the peasants) of the home gardens in favour of the wet rice fields. This de-emphasis further shelters the economically more important home gardens, at the same time as it focuses attention on the economically less important wet rice fields.
My suggestion that the non-susceptibility of the home gardens to extraction has made them attractive to peasants and unattractive to central governments is supported by the fact, cited by Penny and Ginting (pp. 148-49), that the current national government prohibits any reduction in area of wet rice fields in favour of expansion of the area of home gardens (or any other land use).
(4This does not mean that the home garden was never subjected to any extraction at all. Both Raffles and Stoler (cited in Penny and Ginting, p. 192n) refer to a long history of government taxation of home gardens.)
I probably should treat both arguments as equal (as I did in the gardens' bird diversity) - is that recommended?
Hmm, I'm not sure exactly how it should be phrased. I guess something to indicate that it is difficult for governments to tax pekarangans, but they still try to do it. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cerebellum: Will deleting the referring sentence(s) be better, as the reference itself is, kind of, presenting no clear conclusion? Dhio-270599  12:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Dhio270599: No I actually think it's an interesting point and should be covered, you could say something along the lines of Since pekarangans contain many species, which mature at different times throughout the year, it is difficult for governments to tax them. But now that I think about it, it might make more sense to say that in the "Sociology and economy" section instead of the history section.  --Cerebellum (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cerebellum: Will this be good? Since pekarangans contain many species, which mature at different times throughout the year, it is difficult for governments throughout Javanese history to tax them systematically. The difficulty also caused the Indonesian government to forbade the reduction of rice fields to the advantage of the gardens as of 1990. Such difficulty might have helped the gardens to be more complex over time. Despite that, past governments still tried to tax the gardens. Dhio-270599  23:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Dhio270599: Yes! I like that. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cerebellum: Done. :D Dhio-270599  12:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Dry season plants: This isn't required for this GA review, just a suggestion for additional content.  You mention in the "plants" section that eggplants are cultivated in the dry season, you could add more information on what plants are cultivated in the dry vs. wet seasons and how the seasons affect the gardens. I don't know anything about tropical gardening so I don't know if you can cultivate plants all year long or only in certain seasons.
A good suggestion; however, I haven't found the mentions of such comparison. When I found one, I'll make sure to include it into the article.
 --Cerebellum (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: thank you very much for the review! Dhio-270599  16:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(Initial feedback of the last review is copied from Mike Christie's talk page and added with some minor edits.)

"Yields of the gardens offer various uses...." changed to that exact suggestion in the review.
"Otto Soemarwoto and Gordon Conway accounted that the gardens..." -- 'accounted' changed to 'suggested'.
Redundancy of 'fragmentation' in the second lead paragraph: The prose is rephrased: "The sustainability and social roles of pekarangans have been threatened by mass urbanization and land fragmentation, which are the factors of decreasing land dwelling area on average. The decrease is consequently followed by loss of plant diversity within the gardens."
"...spatially arranged according to local values" is vague -- perhaps this is a good alternative, but not sure: "....according to traditional beliefs and values, such as the philosophy Tri Hita Karana in Bali." I wanted to avoid explaining the philosophy further, as it might disturb the flow of the paragraph. I haven't wrote the alternative in the article yet.
On the word 'intentional' in "intentional human intervention": I wrote 'intentional' to distinguish "intentional human intervention" from "unintentional human intervention" (not explicitly mentioned); one example is "seed scattering by ... humans after they eat" (in the manner of throwing them away as waste, hence not intentional) that is among the janteun ku anjeun process mentioned before.
Using the same word across several sentences in a row is definitely a redundant thing, but what about synonyms with similar suffixes (e.g. using 'usually', then 'generally', then 'commonly' across those sentences)?
Dhio (talk?) 02:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a note to say I saw your ping and will get over here when I can -- I'm in the middle of a couple of other FAC reviews and would like to get those out of the way first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Dhio, I'm finally free to get back to this; sorry about the delay.  If it's OK with you, what I'll do is go through and copyedit, and if I have any questions or need to refer to sources I don't have access to, I'll post a note here.  I see you've fixed a couple of the points above -- I'll take a look at those as I go through the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mike: I'm definitely okay with that. Thanks so much! Dhio (talk?) 15:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll add notes and questions here as I go through.

Meanwhile, Hartono et al. define it as a plot of land with clear boundaries, with a house built above it; various functional relations, consisted of economical, biophysical, social, and cultural relations, between it and its owner are made. I'm not sure what the second half of this means, so I'm not sure how to rephrase it; can you clarify?
I just read the article again. The quoted sentence is somehow unclear as well, even in its own language. Here's my best effort to translate (in a literal way): "Hartono et al. (....) defined pekarangan as a plot of land which has certain boundaries, which upon it exists a dwelling and has functional relation[ship?] economically, bio-physically, socially, and culturally with its owner." (side note: I can't even comprehend the phrasing myself -- I'm okay for the whole Hartono quote to be erased off the paragraph.)
OK, probably should go then; I've cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
that is also an ecosystem with plants of various height: it seems odd to mention the different heights of the plants as a point of interest.  Why do we care about this?
Actually, the original quote says "layered canopy" instead of "varied height". My fault. Perhaps "that is also an ecosystem with densely layered canopy" might be good?
Done, but we should be careful not to paraphrase too closely -- is this far enough from the source phrasing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The original quote is actually in Indonesian -- I think it's okay.
Simatupang and Suryana argue that it is hard to define "pekarangan" clearly, due to its role both as extended use of farmlands and as a homestead. Would it be accurate to rephrase this as "Simatupang and Suryana argue that it is hard to define "pekarangan" clearly, since its role can vary from a form of farmland to a homestead plot."?
Looks great. I'm good with that.
OK, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(first (series of?) questions.) Dhio (talk?) 15:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, more to come -- I have a few minutes now and will probably have more time this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
(I was meant to say "first set of answers" but was not focused. My bad.) Dhio (talk?) 14:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Some perennials such as melinjo (Gnetum gnemon) produce leaves consistently. This is in the context of harvesting, so I was expecting to hear about the fruit, not the leaves. I had a look at the article on the plant and it appears the leaves are used in cooking; is that why you mention the leaves here? If so I think this should be clear to the reader.
I've found a reference to the G. gnemon leaves being edible. However, the original quote from the Soemarwoto et al. (1985) article doesn't explicitly say 'edible leaves' -- it merely says "Leaves of some perennials, e.g. melinjo (Gnetum gnemon), are always available." (I'm worried that it might be considered WP:OR -- what do you think?)
This might work to demonstrate that they're edible; it's not a great source but since it's a grocery site, using it to demonstrate that something is edible seems reasonable.  How about "Some perennials, such as melinjo, whose leaves are edible, can be harvested all year round"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I've added this instead, since it's a sci article D (talk?) 21:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
According to Christanty, perennials in such home gardens are more dominant in regions where rice fields use more than 40 percent of the region's area, while annual plants dominate in other areas. Perennials also dominate in gardens where labor is inadequate. Does Christanty explain or theorize about the connection between the use of perennials and the local rice fields?  Seems an interesting correlation.  And you say "more dominant", implying that they may be dominant but less so elsewhere, but then say annuals dominate elsewhere.  Would the source support this: "Perennials are more common than annuals in pekarangans in regions where rice fields use more than 40 percent of the region's area; elsewhere the situation is reversed, and annuals are more common, though if labor is in short supply, perennials are again favored, since they don't require replanting each year."  I made the last part up in the hope that the source would allow us to say something like that, since I'm assuming that's Christanty's implication.
Does Christanty explain or theorize about the connection between the use of perennials and the local rice fields?Christanty attributed the correlation (to rice fileds) to a resaerch by Danoesastro (1976) (sadly, can't find a copy).
Would the source support this[?] ........ I made the last part up in the hope that the source would allow us to say something like that, since I'm assuming that's Christanty's implication.It's a good alternative -- I've changed the part. However, I re-read the article and find no quote implying such thing. Intuitively, that's actually a likely assumption, but it might be susceptible to WP:OR.
If the source doesn't support "since they don't require replanting each year" I think we have to cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Such home gardens are also identifiable by trees, one of their most common components; their abundance contributes to the image of Indonesian countrysides – instead of houses, they are identified by their "dense, forest mimics". I'm not sure what this is telling me.  What is identified by the "dense, forest mimics" -- the houses?  Or do you mean the image of Indonesian countrysides for most people is of pekarangans?  That hide their houses?
It's the countrysides -- sentence modified.
OK.  Not crazy about the phrasing; how about "Trees are one of the most common components of pekarangans, contributing to the image of Indonesian countryside with houses less visible than the "dense, forest mimics" of pekarangans"?  Assuming the source supports that phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm okay with the suggestion; it pretty much conveys the same thing. I've modified the part.
Vegetables are habitually grown in front and side areas to be exposed to light, as tall trees are rare in those areas. Trees with large canopies might be planted in front yards: don't these two statements contradict each other?
Tall trees might be planted in the front yard, but this doesn't imply that tall trees are dominant there -- I assume that there might be only one, or two, tall trees in the front yard, and that is optional. Hence, "might". (however, the article doesn't say that explicitly, and I'm afraid I might do some form of WP:OR -- what do you think?)
I see what you mean, but it does read oddly.  What exactly does the article say? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The back plots of the Sundanese gardens might be planted with coconuts, fruit trees, and tall trees whose woods are used for construction. Those are planted in back gardens to avoid damage to the house when any of them falls due to a storm. The second sentence refers just to the tall trees?  or to the coconuts and fruit trees too?
It's all of them -- what could be the fitting phrase to replace the pronoun?
How about "Coconuts, fruit trees, and tall trees whose woods are used for construction are planted in back gardens to avoid damage to the house when any of them falls due to a storm."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a more effective alternative; I've modified the part.
We have more information about Sundanese pekarangans than other areas.  I know the Sundanese are numerous, but geographically this is a small part of Indonesia.  You do say in the lead that pekarangans are "mainly in Java"; I think it might be worth saying it again in the "Definition" section.  What about the rest of Java -- do the sources have more specifics about the characteristics of pekarangans elsewhere?  For example, you say that janteun ku anjeun is the reason there is little deliberate plan to Sundanese back gardens; does that mean pekarangans in east Java do have more planned layouts?
garbage dumps, called jarian in Sundanese: the article doesn't mention jarian again, so does the reader need this?
I personally found it informative, since I'm not really familiar with the Sundanese culture. However, I doubt the general reader would feel the same thing. I've deleted it.
I'd suggest giving the approximate date for the goat pen picture, since it's not contemporary -- perhaps just "Early 20th century".
In the paragraph on soil fauna, it sounds very tentative -- I was able to find a copy of the relevant paper online, and Widyastuti is not tentative.  I think we can drop the inline attribution and simply restate his conclusions about diversity.  His concluding section specifically uses fallow paddy fields as the comparison, so I think we should make that clear.  He does say "presume" for the vegetation cover.  Many readers won't know what a paddy field is, so they won't realize that it won't have any shade canopy at all; I think we need to try to find a way to give the reader the mental picture of the fallow field for comparison.
Reading through the paper on bird diversity in Jambi, I see they cite some papers that appear to be about homegardens.  Looks like at least one is already cited here, but have you been able to consult any of the others?  I'm thinking of refs 11, 13, 14, 15, and 53.
Plant diversity in pekarangans arises from complex interactions between several factors that are not fully understood.  I think this is a slightly inaccurate rephrasing of the source, which says "Plant diversity...is influenced by a combination of...factors. The complex interactions of all these factors are not yet fully understood."  It's the interactions, not the individual factors, that are not understood.  But anyway, do we need this sentence?  Could we just start with "Factors affecting plant diversity in pekarangans include..."?
I agree that the rephrasing is more accurate. However, I think it's better to inform the readers that the interactions are indeed complex/not yet fully understood. Perhaps "Plant diversity in pekarangans arises from complex interactions between several factors. Among the factors are ....." is okay?
That's better but it loses the "not fully understood part".  I'm also concerned that we're a little close to the source's phrasing at the moment.  How about reversing the order and starting with the list: "Factors affecting plant diversity in pekarangans include..."?  Then a sentence about the interaction of these factors.  I'm struggling to come up with phrasing that's sufficiently different from the source.  I'll have to come back to this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
And a side note: the literature mostly seems to use the word "homegardens"; should we do the same, rather than using an Indonesian word?
I used terms like "homegardens" and "gardens" only to avoid redundancy/refer pekarangan in other terms. However, changing all of them to "homegardens" would be like -- let's pick another example -- referring the Ao Dai as "the Vietnamese clothing/garment" or simply "the garment" in the entirety of the article, and only explicitly writes the term "Ao Dai" in the opening paragraph... which I would not prefer.
OK -- I just wanted to be sure it was a suitable title for the article; that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
and their close proximity to the owners' domestic activities: why would this affect plant diversity?
I'm not sure I know why El Niño is mentioned.  I think the implication is that the variation in rainfall that comes with El Niño causes variations in plant diversity, but if so that should be clear (and presumably the same could be said about any climatic variation).
The original quote from Kehlenbeck et al. (2007) says "However, variation in plant diversity might occur also due to small-scale climatic variation, like droughts caused, for example, by El Niño events.". Moreover, a graph in page 302 of the Kehlenbeck article credited climatic variation to a (short-term?) decrease in plant diversity (if you can't access the article, here's an alternative link). Would this rephrasing be good: "....and effects of climatic events like droughts due to El Niño that might temporarily decrease plant diversity"?
The paragraph is about plant diversity so I'm not sure we need to repeat that.  How about "Other natural factors are size, temperature decrease due to elevation, and variations in rainfall, which can be influenced by climatic events such as El Niño"?  I don't think we need to explicitly say "droughts" here; the point is that rainfall varies, and El Niño is one possible cause. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The comments in the second paragraph are broad enough that I think they deserve a bit more space.  Why does diversity in the local ecosystem aid any individual plant?  What about carbon harvesting is relevant to a pekarangan?  The cooling of the domestic climate implies a pretty substantial fraction of the land area is covered by pekarangans in those areas, which is a fact worth mentioning in itself.
What is "Imperata grassland"?  If this is a common terrain, I'd say so; most readers won't know.
I won't say so -- It might be better to inform the that it is genus-specific (that is, the Imperata). Besides, the grasses' family has a diverse collection of genus, and I don't want to imply that Imperata is a dominant one, or represents the grasses of the general terrain.
Then I'm confused by the mention of it.  Why does the source think this is worth pointing out, if it's not common? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
What's the basis for putting some material in the "Ecology" section in the first section, instead of in one of the two subsections?  For example you mention the effect of elevation on size in the opening paragraphs and also under "Natural factors".
Pekarangans with better access to water...are able to facilitate annual crop cultivation: I'm not sure what this means for pekarangans in drier areas -- can they not plant annual crops?  So they have to have only long-established plants, perhaps fruit trees?  Though I'd have thought fruit trees needed a lot of water.
The erosion information is interesting.  Does the sources say why natural forests are better at erosion reduction?
Production in the gardens decreases during rice-harvesting seasons but peaks during the rest of the year: do you mean that while rice is being harvested, labour is less available to harvest from the pekarangan?  So it's a labour problem, rather than the pekarangan actually producing less?
...a failed rice harvest by drought, known as paceklik: do we need the Indonesian word?
Maybe no -- I've erased the word.
The incidence of commercial and even monoculture gardening seems worth mentioning when you talk about diversity, higher up.
Fragmentation stems from the traditional system of inheritance: I think this needs to be spelled out; I'd guess that you mean the property is divided so the pekarangan becomes two or more independent pekarangans?
the disappearance of yields-sharing culture: I don't know what this means.
The last paragraph in human impact discusses soil protection, which was covered under natural factors too.  I wonder if it would be better to eliminate the subsections and try to organize this material more as a discussion of ecological points, such as diversity, erosion, fertility, and climate, with the various factors, both natural and human, mentioned as needed.  I'm not certain it would be better but it might be worth thinking about.
By "building materials" are you referring to more than just wood from the trees?
food-producing uses of the gardens are more dominant than crop fields due to soil erosion in these regions: do you mean that pekarangans actually produce more total food than locally cultivated crop fields?
I was wondering about examples of demand for a crop stimulating the growth of that plant in pekarangans; when I followed the reference I see Abdoellah refers to a paper of his from 1985 that sounds like it would be useful to consult.  He lists some others that look relevant, too; have you been able to get copies of Karyono's papers, or Soemarwoto & Soemarwoto's, for example?  And Thaman looks like it might be interesting in that it might place pekarangans in a broader regional context.
There's a bit of crossover of information in the "Subsistence" and "Commercial" sections, and as with the "Ecology" section I'm wondering if the subsections are doing us any favours.  For example "the poor cultivate subsistence plants in their pekarangans with an emphasis on fruits and vegetables" is in the commercial section.  If the contrast is to be pointed out in this way, eliminating the subsection headings might make it easier.
The second paragraph of the "Commercial" section quotes directly contradictory results -- poor people orient more towards commercial uses, but also commercial use increases with wealth.  This is also in conflict with a comment in the "Subsistence" section.  We should at least note the contradiction, if we can't resolve it.
I see you are using square metres and square feet; is one of those the local practice?  Most land-use articles use acres or hectares.
Ann Stoler argued that as a rural family acquire more area of rice field, garden use becomes less intense, up until the family-owned rice field reach around 2,000 square meters... Past this point, garden use starts to increase.  I don't follow -- less intense use is the same as increasing use?
A minor punctuation issue; use either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes, but not both; you mostly have unspaced em dashes but there's at least one spaced en dash, in the "Sociology and economy" section.
The first paragraph of the "Sociology and economy" section raises a couple of questions for me.  If men prepare land, plant tree crops and sell crops, what's the sense in which pekarangans are "mainly developed by women"?  Is it that the men don't do as much work as the women, or that the women are the ones doing the planning and directing labour?
I also don't follow For the same reason, matriarchal culture around the gardens started to develop; the fact that pekarangans are more common in matriarchal tribes and societies doesn't automatically mean that any additional matriarchal culture would develop.  If you just mean that in matriarchal areas they are matriarchal that's not clear.
offering yields from pekarangans to others is believed to be the medium of such culture: I don't know what is meant by "believed"; it seems unlikely to mean that the source believes this is the medium of such culture, but isn't sure.  Do you mean something like "considered to be"?
Some offer their products to cure diseases or to protect owners from dangers -- to protect the recipient, not the owner, presumably?  What would be an example of a gift that would protect from danger?
My fault for not describing the context clearly. Actually, this is within the context of religious/cultural offerings. I think this might be a good alternative: Some made offerings from the gardens' yields to cure diseases or to protect owners from dangers. What's your opinion on this?
Yes, that makes it much clearer.  How about "Some owners make religious offerings of their gardens' produce, to cure diseases or protect them from danger"?   That moves "owner" up to the start of the sentence, which I think is more natural, and makes it completely clear that we're talking about a religious activity. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
You describe taking medicinal plants without permission as theft, but it sounds like permission isn't needed in most cases anyway, so the term seems wrong.
Can "their taking" be a good alternative?
That's not really what bothered me, though I didn't put it very well.  What I meant was that if permission is generally not needed, why would we comment on taking medicinal plants without permission?  Perhaps "explicit permission" is the way to get around this.  How about:
A rural pekarangan owner usually allows others to enter it for any practical reason: taking dead wood for fuel, pulling water from a well for their own use, or even taking its crops, though permission might be restricted or denied if the owner has only a limited yield for his or her own consumption.  Requests to take products from the gardens for religious or medicinal purposes are rarely or never denied, but since some people believe asking permission to take medicinal plants in a pekarangan is taboo, they may also be taken without explicit permission."
A couple of little copyedits there along with the restructuring; what do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Happy with the flow of the text! I've revised the paragraph.
ps: I've re-read the article. The referred sentences are these: "In some areas there is the belief that for a medicine to be effective it must be stolen and hence it is taboo to ask for permission. If an owner discovers such an act, s/he will pretend not to see it."I'm thinking of this alternative instead: Requests to take products from the gardens for religious or medicinal purposes are rarely or never denied, but since some people believe asking permission to take medicinal plants in a pekarangan is a taboo that should be avoided in order for the medicine to take effect, they may also be taken without notice to the owner. Furthermore, owners who believed the taboo would act as if they are unaware of such action of taking. What's your opinion on this?
I think the fact that the cultural belief is that the medicine must be stolen to be effective is the key point; we need a phrasing that gets that across. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Javanese culture interpreted the gardens as pepek ing karang: do you mean this is a possible etymology for the term "pekarangan"?  If so "interpreted the gardens" is the wrong way to say it; that would imply a cultural interpretation or understanding.
indicating agricultural practices within the gardens are a consequence of thinking about the ways to use their produce and satisfy their needs from them: this doesn't sound very insightful or unique; it says "what people do in the gardens depends on what they want to get from them".  Is there more to this thought in the source?
only by men who are believed to have spiritual powers: surely not true in modern culture?  Or not universally?
The backyard of a Sundanese homestead is described as supados sungkur (to be unseen by others). This might fit better a couple of paragraphs later when you talk about the Sundanese language, since the rest of this paragraph is about Javanese culture.
In the picture of the Balinese dwelling, and the associated discussion, I'm not clear where the pekarangan is -- is it the entire area of the compound that is outside the buildings but within the walls?
The rather dry series of numbers in the first paragraph of the "History and development" section might be better as a table.
Is the 2010 number correct?  It's more than twice the number from 2000; are pekarangans really growing at such an extraordinary rate?  And if they are, it seems most unlikely that the 2010 number is a peak.
I'd switch the order of sentences so we talk about the first record in 860 and then the spread to East Java later.
In 1990, this difficulty caused the Indonesian government to forbid the reduction of rice fields in favor of pekarangans. Such difficulty might have helped the gardens to become more complex over time. I don't understand this.
past governments still tried to tax the gardens: is there a tax in effect now?
the sharing culture in traditional commercial pekarangans vanished, and the poor enjoyed fewer rights from them: what does the second half of this mean?
The program applies its agenda to a concept named Kawasan Rumah Pangan Lestari (KRPL; "Sustainable Food Houses Region").  The translation helps, but I still don't really know what KRPL is.  What is the difference between P2KP and KRPL?
I see at least one or two papers on Google Scholar about GPOP; is there more information that could be added about the program?
That's it for a first pass.  Overall, my main concerns with the article are that the information seems a bit fragmented, and that there might be more sources available.  I haven't done much in the way of copyediting because I think the organizational and sourcing are more important to get right first. It's a fascinating topic, and one I knew nothing about; thanks for writing this! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've responded to some of the questions -- in all seriousness (and I really mean it), I wanted to thank you for the review. I've been thinking of some unlikely ways I could improve the article further, thanks to this review (plus, the more I think of the FA cancellation, the more I'm assured that it's necessary). I'll try to respond more tomorrow or in the next two days. Dhio (talk?) 14:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Glad you're finding it useful.  It's a pleasure to work on an article with another editor dedicated to improving it!  No hurry on anything; there's no deadline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I've added more responses above. Dhio (talk?) 00:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(A note 5 years later): My bad --- I overlooked these notes. I'll make sure to improve the article as the 2nd FA nom is ongoing. D (talk?) 21:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)