Wikipedia:Peer review/Indonesia/archive1
May 2006
[edit]Hi - I request the help of all in making this a featured article. Rama's Arrow 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- The issues on this one should be kinda obvious :) There are practically references, the culture section is totally underdeveloped, economy is a bit short too, government doesn't cover anything below the federal level - and half the section is about foreign relations (which should be in its own section - possibly with a discussion of military). The history section may end up being a bit long, once all the missing bits are added.--Peta 00:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm gonna appropriately balance all sections by Tuesday. Please check back soon. Rama's Arrow 00:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
September 2006 peer review
[edit]This is a new nomination. The article has improved by adding citations and broading its coverage. Please give your feedback. Cheers -- Imoeng 21:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know should I talk on this page or the archive page. Recently this article failed GA status (see discussion page) because of not enough citations and not broad enough. However recently improvements have been made. Please share your thoughts. Cheers -- Imoeng 21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly I would suggest patience. I don't think there are many quick fixes for the article but it certainly needs your enthusiasm. There is a lot that should be done to the article. Agne's advice was indeed very helpful and she made many valid points, but i fear that just getting that right and ticking "her" boxes is only part of the problem. YEs, that history section is a bit of an issue. I don't know that it needs to be shorter rather, some things use too many words. Look that Australia history section. It seems to be shorter or maybe the same size, but have more info in it. --Merbabu 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is it wrong to ask for feedback?
I didn't say I disagree with Agne, in fact, if you look at the talk page, you can understand how much I appreciate the person.Maybe there is a "patience" requirement for WP:PR, sorry, I didn't know. :| Imoeng 05:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)- Sorry Imoeng. I think you misunderstood me - maybe i wasn't clear. I it was great to ask for the feedback, I think that the feedback was also most valuable and should be use. And from what i have seen you have been implementing the recommendations which is great. I just think there is likely to me more to be done - in addition. keep up the good work. --Merbabu 05:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is it wrong to ask for feedback?
- Firstly I would suggest patience. I don't think there are many quick fixes for the article but it certainly needs your enthusiasm. There is a lot that should be done to the article. Agne's advice was indeed very helpful and she made many valid points, but i fear that just getting that right and ticking "her" boxes is only part of the problem. YEs, that history section is a bit of an issue. I don't know that it needs to be shorter rather, some things use too many words. Look that Australia history section. It seems to be shorter or maybe the same size, but have more info in it. --Merbabu 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the major objections to GA candidacy have been addressed, although it would help to trim down the history section a little bit (because of the flag) and to get rid of the three citation needed tags. If I saw this on GAC today I'd leave a note on the talk page to address those details and invite the editors to write to my user talk page when they're fixed, then hand out the GA myself. The GAC feedback was excellent and makes a good blueprint for FAC. Keep doing what you're doing and I'm optimistic this can become an FA before the end of the year. Durova 06:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. Firstly, I don't want to make "box ticking" or stuff, but from your thought, is History and citations are the biggest problem? It is a long article, thus a list of things to do is needed (I reckon) so we can accomplish it much easier. Cheers -- Imoeng 06:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's where I'd focus, although the advice regarding the history section does pull in both directions: the GAC response wanted more and now someone flagged the section as overlong. I guess the solution there is to trim the colonial history and expand pre-colonial history. Durova 16:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Recently I have rewritten the history section. Could someone give comment about it? Also please improve my English style. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- Imoeng 15:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I corrected a few linguistic slips in the introduction and history. Best wishes, Durova 06:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Recently I have rewritten the history section. Could someone give comment about it? Also please improve my English style. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- Imoeng 15:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's where I'd focus, although the advice regarding the history section does pull in both directions: the GAC response wanted more and now someone flagged the section as overlong. I guess the solution there is to trim the colonial history and expand pre-colonial history. Durova 16:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)