Talk:Malaysia/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 17:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I will look at this later and then start to leave some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 17:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I note quite a few reverts of IP edits. I'll look more closely into this later to see if this article gets an undue amount of vandalism and so might benefit from semi-protection, or if there is some underlying edit warring going on. SilkTork *^YES! 23:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that differences of view are discussed on the talkpage, which is good. There may be a temptation to revert the work of IPs too quickly. IPs are valued contributors - and most Wikipedia editors started out editing as an IP. We must be careful not to revert them too quickly with an edit summary telling them to take any complaint to the talkpage. It may be better to have the discussion first. The only stuff that should be automatically reverted should be vandalism. It's a good mindset to get into. If unsure about a new edit, discuss it before reverting it. And if possible, edit out the edit rather than simply reverting it. That has less of an off-putting impact on the other person. We want to encourage people to take part, not chase them away. Anyway, as this is not a major issue (many articles have minor disputed edits), it's not going to hold up the review. SilkTork *^YES! 13:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• There is a problem with File:Yang di-pertuan agong ke-13.PNG, all other images are fine. SilkTork *^YES! 23:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As the image has now been removed, the article passes on that criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 12:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Prose is clear and readable, conveying a lot of information in an immediate, attractive, authoritative yet neutral form. It is of a very high standard. SilkTork *^YES! 00:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Meets criteria for MoS issues. The structure/layout may need to be looked at to ensure a more logical organisation. Transport is not generally grouped under Economy, and the demographics sub-sections are normally sections in their own right. But these are considerations for further development - they are not serious enough to impact on the GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 12:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sources. I'm checking sources, and I'm not sure [1] is a reliable source, and I'm uncertain about the use of a powerpoint slide to support popular sports in Malaysia - is there something else? These are my only quibbles - all other sources I checked were fine, and did support what was said in the article. I like when sources are available online, as that means readers can quickly confirm the contents and so gain confidence not only in this article, but in Wikipedia as a whole. I would suggest though, as part of ongoing development, that high quality sources be sought out. There are book and scholarly sources that could be used. SilkTork *^YES! 12:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sources that I checked, such as BBC, World Desk, and CIA, covered largely the same information, and little significant material has been left out. Mention of these facts - such as that Malaysia has the death penalty - should be looked into, but that is fine detail, more appropriate for the comprehensive requirement of FA, and this article more than adequately covers the GA requirement of broad coverage. Indeed the selection and presentation of the material is very professional, and everyone involved should be commended. My quibble is the amount of material in some sections. That is always a careful balancing act - providing "enough" information, but not throwing too much at the reader, who essentially only wants an overview (more details can be found, after all, in the linked articles). Demographics, Governance, Geography and History may be rather large chunks, and all have sub-articles. The History section may be improved purely by breaking into two or three subsections. However, these, again, are questions for further development rather than something that will impact on this review. SilkTork *^YES! 13:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Pass

This is a very useful, readable and professionally presented article. One of the best articles I've encountered. Thanks and respect go out to all those involved, and an encouragement to get working on building up other articles. Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 13:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)