Talk:Kasman Singodimedjo/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Juxlos (talk · contribs) 16:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one Czarking0 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments

I would consider adding more coverage to JIB as he was chairman during a critical organizing period. In my reading of the Laftif source I see decent coverage about JIB. Using this and potentially other sources you could construct a few sentences of what he did/supported/participated in as chairman. It may also be notable whom succeeded him and why that transition occurred.Czarking0 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MIAI is out of context. The reader does not now what this is. Looking at the source I am led to believe it is affiliated with Muhammadiyah but it seems a bit ambiguous.Czarking0 (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For some time, he was imprisoned by Dutch authorities after he gave a public speech in 1940 calling for Indonesian independence. Source says he was arrested. I think we can assume it was brief so it might be better to just say he was arrested but if you can find a source that says how long that would be better. I think this warrants investigating Panitia Peringatan 75 Tahun Kasman 1982, pp. 41–46 which is cited in the source and may contain more detail about the timelineCzarking0 (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is typical for these pages to address notable works by the authors. I would consider mentioning Renungan dari Tahanan since it is used as a source in some of your sources and presented as an influential work on his party's politics. (Madinier 10-12)Czarking0 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like his time is PETA is very lightly covered. I question if that is fair weight since it seems to be 4 years? Czarking0 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following the proclamation of Indonesian independence, Kasman along with several Indonesian collaborationist leaders were invited to informally join the Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence (PPKI) on 18 August, where Kasman and the others' positions were attacked by nationalist youths who considered them too close to the Japanese. This is a bit of run-on sentence. Also it seems like the where should be a when? What does attacked mean in this context?Czarking0 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is a new section and does not mention what year this 18 August comes from. I assume 1945? Czarking0 (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole paragraph reads like a poor summary of a historical event. I think you should consider turning it into a subsection and explain more fully what was going on. That will put Singodimedjo's role in the events into better context. Czarking0 (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I just realized all the text refers to him as Kasman. I assume that is his family name? Or at least this is the usual Indonesian naming convention? Czarking0 (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
permuda no reason to introduce this term and then never use it

Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The Politics section needs grammar and clarity work. Czarking0 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The Politics section should probably have subsectionsCzarking0 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	good
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	good
	2c. it contains no original research.	Did not do all spot checks pending other issues but for the sources I checked it looks goodCzarking0 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	earwig check looks good
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Personal life is quite brief I think a second pass is needed to determine if this is justified.Czarking0 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] General comments above have some other ways I think the coverage can be significantly improved. Czarking0 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	good
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I am not 100% convinced of the neutrality but I want to do other source checking before deciding. Nothing glaring.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	looks good
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Choosen images are good. Could use more potentially.
	7. Overall assessment.	Not at this time. Holding for author to make some edits