Talk:Indonesia/Archive 4

message: I have declined GA status for the current incarnation of the article based on the standards of Good Article Criteria below. I do see immense merit and positive attributions made to the article and have no doubt that the editors can address the necessary concerns to bring the article up to GA status. For reference, I also compared the format, content and styling  to featured articles on countries such as Cambodia and People's Republic of China. Judging by the hard work and dedication of the editors, I suspect that an eventual goal would be to bring this article up to FA status. Included in this assessment will be some comments labeled FA Consideration on areas that you may want to look at. These items won't be "make or break" considerations for the sake of GA but are worthwhile to keep in mind. 
1. It is well written. - Pass
*Overall I think it's well written with no glaring WP:MOS issues. However for the sake of FA consideration, I would consider looking at some of the section titles to see if they most clearly present the subject. (Like Japanese Occupation, Independence & Sukarno-which looks awkward)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement
*Compared to other country articles that have received Featured and GA status, the article is under-referenced with nearly 80% of the reference isolated in 4 of the article's 18 main sub-sections. Very glaring is the entire sections of The Dutch, Japanese Occupation..., The New Order, and Reformasi not having any in-line citation references at all. In fact the entire history section only has 3 in-line citations.
3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement
*An area of considerable need for expansion is History prior to the 18th century. There is the link to the main article of History in Indonesia but that link is not meant to replace everything. Rather it's meant to provide more in-depth information on key events and topics that is approached in this article. In a way you can visualize it as a thumbnail or summary presentation that will wet the reader's appetite to want to read more about the subject matter. I would review the History in Indonesia article for more key points that can be added here.
*There needs to be more expansion of the Muslim history and influence in Indonesia. A question that popped into my mind early while reading the article was "How did Indonesia become the most populous Muslim nation and how has that affected their society?" After reading the Religion section here and even the main "Religion in Indonesia" article, I don't think either or those two areas have been addressed.
*I would also expand on the Foreign relation area under the Government and politics. I found it odd that there wasn't much commented about Terrorism, in particular the 2005 Bali bombings. Similarly I was surprised at the absence of info on the independence movement in the various ethnic areas like Aceh. 
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Weak Pass
*Based on the material present, there is an NPOV tone. But given the significant need for expansion in many areas (like Politics, terrorism, and religion), I could only give it a weak pass since all sides of the story really are not present.
5. It is stable - Needs Improvement
*Reading the comments in the discussion page and looking at the article history makes me think that this is still a work in progress. While a definition of "stables" doesn't mean it has to be free of edits for a certain period of time (tweaking and tidying is always an on going process), there has been over a 130 edits to the page since it was nominated for GA status on August 11th and a large chunk of them were more then just minor typos or formatting issues. 
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Needs Improvement
*Some pictures seem out of place in the context of the article they are placed in like...
:- Borobudur in the section on The Dutch, which has no connection that I can discern. If there is one then it needs to be mentioned in the section. As it stands, it doesn't illustrate the topic.
:-Prambanan in the section J'apanese Occupation, Independence & Sukarno'. An important part of including images is that they serve as a visual aid in conceptualizing the concept or event being detailed in the section. There should be an explicated link between the context of the section and the accompanied photo.
:-There are other photos as well but for brevity I will not list them all. I recommend a general review of all placements.
*FA consideration The image "Irrigation in Pachung, Bali." in the Economy section is not very discernible, even when you click on the image for a larger scale. You may want to consider a better illustration.
*FA consideration Areas where you may want to look for an image for illustration benefit
:-Religion Ideally you wouldn't want just repeats of what is in the main article but Indonesia is home to many simple gorgeous mosques as well as indigenous tribal arts. You may consider the buddhist temple pictures from above (Though I think they would be better off in an expanded Early History section.
:-Demographics This one is generally easy since there is vast array of ethnic groups and people shots. 
:-History of the Spice Trade An easy pic would an example of the spices that are native to Indonesia and where commonly traded by the Dutch. 
I do want to thank the editors of this article for bringing the article up to this point. Your hard work and dedication is of immense value to the project. I have no doubt that the above concerns can be address and a stellar article awaits. I wholeheartedly encourage you to continue pushing this article up to GA and then FA level. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 21:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: I'm moving this comment from my talk page here to keep the discussion centralized Agne 01:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Improvement

message: Rather than getting into an edit war of the most utterly trivial and pointless kind, I'd like to point out that it is disingenuous editing to refer to this change as fixing a "spelling error." Both words are relatively acceptable and they mean the exact same thing. My logic in changing to "inhabitance" was that it has the same meaning and one fewer syllable, and briefer is better. This is a stylistic choice, even perhaps a dialect-driven one, and that is not the point of editing Wikipedia, so I'm not changing it back. I just think "inhabitancy" is a ridiculous neologism created by people who didn't know that "inhabitance" is already a noun. There are plenty more important ways to contribute than to make petty style changes, and referring to them as correcting spelling errors is dishonest and not within the spirit of Wikipedia.  Feeeshboy 14:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think I was dishonest and breaking the spirit of wikipedia or rather simply unaware? Please assume good faith  before making patronisingly worded and emotive accusations.  Also, although I have not yet had the time to further edit the recent changes to the history section, there has been a push to actually make that section shorter, and/or more succint, rather than expand it. ,  --Merbabu 14:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was assuming good faith by expecting that someone wouldn't make repeated spelling/grammar edits if they were indeed unaware of what is correct. It's not as if it's hard or time-consuming to consult a dictionary before making a change (I did). That said, I apologize if I was quick to judge. I fully agree that the history section should be made shorter, but the few changes I made did not significantly add to the length, and were intended to address serious weaknesses in the flow of the article. I don't consider myself well-enough versed in the subject matter to be an authority on what content should be removed (although I would suggest that the details from 1998-2004 are excessive), but whatever is there should at least read like an encyclopedia. Feeeshboy 14:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK. For the record, after initally only consulting Microsoft Word, i did consult two hard copy dictionaries and 1 online and they don't change my opinion. Most importantly though, I think your "flow" edits are almost all good "value-adds" but i did change some of the subject/content.--Merbabu 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inhabitancy vs. inhabitance

message: As this it the key article to all Indonesian related articles, i am posting here to remind people to contribute to nominating and voting for the next collaborations. We chose next article on Sunday. Here:  I've put mine in but I am not particularly tied to it - i will work on whatever is nominated. I suggest choosing articles ranked at high importance but lower quality. Check quality and importance rankings here . --Merbabu 05:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Next collaboration

message: I saw the tag on the comment referring to Arabic not being spoken despite Islam being the dominant religion. As I recall, this was added a few months back and initially said it was "interesting" they don't speak Arabic. I removed it cos i thought it was a pointless comment (like saying Brazilian Catholics don't speak Italian or Latin) but was repeatedly added by the original editor until i proposed the compromise without the word "surprisingly". The original edit  and a link to the issue on my talk page Personally i would not mind at all if the whole comment just vanished. lol --Merbabu 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would move that you were correct in removing the line in the first place. It is not in the least bit surprising that Arabic is not spoken despite Indonesia's being a Muslim country. Anyone who suggests otherwise probably doesn't know much about the Muslim world. Arabic is mainly spoken in and around the Arabian penninsula, but (as I just researched) is not a very significant native language in such major Muslim countries as Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, a number of West African countries... need I go on? In these countries, Arabic is more of a scholarly language among Muslims, like Latin among Catholics as you mentioned. Also, how is Arabic the norm in Muslim nations if Indonesia and Pakistan, the two largest Muslim nations, don't really speak it? There is a popular misconception (at least in the US) than Muslim = Arab, but Arabs are merely one of dozens of ethnic groups that practice Islam. If someone wants to start an edit war over this, there are appropriate ways to handle that situation. Feeeshboy 07:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I agree. What do others think? As for edit wars, i think that was my 1st week or 2 at wikipedia when i had a little scuffle - it as resolved in 3 or 4 edits. --Merbabu 08:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic in Indonesia