Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pekarangan/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2020 [1].

Pekarangan edit

Nominator(s): Dhio-270599 10:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a type of tropical home garden developed in Indonesia. Currently a GA, there is no significant additional edit/information to the article since. I think it's enough for FA standards, and it's probably good to go for nomination. Dhio-270599 10:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

This looks pretty comprehensive to someone who knows nothing about the topic. I'm interested that you wrote in AE, given that BE is standard in all the former British colonies in South and Southeast Asia, but of course Indonesia wasn't one of those. Some comments.

@Jimfbleak: Thank you for the review! I'll try my best to improve the article. (a note: Indonesians are more familiar with AE, given that Indonesia wasn't a British colony, as you said.... and perhaps thanks to a sizable number of Indonesian scholars in the past who sought after graduate/doctoral degrees in the US and returned to Indonesia, acquiring influence in various public and private institutions back home.) Dhio-270599 14:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • no problem with duplinks, but the User:Headbomb/unreliable script flagged up Asian Social Science as a predatory publisher, so perhaps you should comment on that. It doesn't mean that the "Effects of Sustainable Home-Yard Food Garden (KRPL) Program: A Case of Banten in Indonesia" can't be used if you are happy with that, the paper itself looks OK. Has it been published elsewhere?
Thanks for the info! I'll use the predatory publishers' script from User:Headbomb in the future. I'll try to find another article to substitute it.
an update: I've changed the Amrullah ref and the RPL description/history sentence to a reference by Nawir et al. about a 1951 program on Indonesian home gardens.
  • wild animals— I'd suggest "(including farmed fish, poultry and ruminants and wild animals)". You also have "animal" three times in that sentence.
Made a minor edit to that. However, I'm not sure if I edited it right - is it okay for you to re-check it?
  • Looks underlinked to me, I'd suggest linking at least ecosystem, langua, lemongrass, eggplant, water buffalo, fauna, amphibian, edge effect, precipitation, genetic, insectivorous, carbon capture, fallow land, carbohydrates, proteins and vitamin A at first occurrence
All done; vitamin A is linked as vitamins [[vitamin A|A]] and [[vitamin C|C]].
  • yard in the plants section is worked to death. Vary it a bit with garden, plot, area or similar.
Done.
  • Any reason why scholars aren't given first names?
If you mean the ones from the Ashari-referenced paragraph from the "Name" section, the original writers of the referred article (Ashari et al.) only put the scholars' last names in the journals. However, I've come to realize that the last names actually refer to names in the bibliography within the Ashari article that the Pekarangan WP article lacked.
An observation: "Sajogyo" is a single name; the first name of Hartono is unknown in the Ashari article; Simatupang and Suryana are only referred as "P. Simatupang" and "A. Suryana" in the article.
  • waste dumping in garbage pits instead of using them for compost—I think you mean dumping waste in garbage pits instead of using it for compost
Done.
I'll have another read when I get time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • melinjo (Gnetum gnemon) produce leaves consistently perhaps insert "edible"?
Done.
  • similar gardens in other Indonesian islands tend to have a big size. perhaps tend to be larger
Done.
  • used for liturgical purposes — I'd guess Hindu on Bali; can you clarify?
It is. Is "used for Balinese Hinduism liturgical purposes" good?
I'm happy with all the responses above, but I have a couple of queries about the accuracy of the long quotation. I'd be astonished if a 19th century British diplomat wrote AE "labored" rather than BE "laboured", and I suspect that "verdant grove" is more plausible than "verdant glove"! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Thanks for pointing those out - both corrections are right, with the latter was, perhaps, a typo. Dhio-270599 08:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Dhio-270599 04:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48 (support) edit

Will review shortly. 05:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Very informative and well researched article. I enjoyed reading it, the explanations are clear, and it seems to cover all major facts and details about the topic. I feel it could benefit from some copyediting, but there is nothing very terrible. Thank you very much for your work here.

  • I have done some light copyedits/tweaks - please check history hopefully I didn't do anything wrong
The edits are superb. Thank you!
  • I think the first paragraph can be improved by adding the the types and purposes of plants being grown.
Added some - I'm not sure if the added description is sufficient. Don't mind revising :)
  • Suggest renaming "Name" section as "definition" to match the scope of the section. Suggest changing the order of paragraph 1 and 2 because the definition is more important than the etymology
Done.
  • "while annual plants dominate in their counterparts": "counterparts" doesn't mean "the opposite", if that's what you mean. I suggest changing to something like "while annual plants dominate in other areas"
Done.
  • "Individual pekarangans are believed to store only small amounts of carbon. Despite that, the gardens are argued to hold an amount of carbon per area that is similar to primary or secondary forests, and greatly surpassing Imperata grasslands and fallow lands" I don't know how to reconcile the first sentence and the second. Given the second sentence, why do we say it only stores small amounts of carbon in the first place? Can you clarify?
The referred line from Roshetko et al. is: "Individual smallholder agroforestry systems are of limited size and by themselves store small amounts of C. However, on a per area basis, homegardens and other smallholder agroforestry systems accumulate significant amounts of C, equaling the amount of C stored in other tree-based systems—including primary or secondary forests—over similar time periods." There's a distinction between "per individual" (of varying size but mostly small) and "per area".
Thank you forr the explanation. I changed it to "While on per individual basis pekarangans store only small amounts of carbon due to their size, on per area basis they hold an amount of carbon that is similar to primary or secondary forests, and greatly surpassing Imperata grasslands and fallow lands." to make the distinction clearer.. is that accurate? HaEr48 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like the emphasis of per individual/area difference in the renewed sentence. Looks great! :D Thank you for the good idea.
  • "This considers that trees higher than 10 meters (33 ft), spice plants, and industrial crops hit a low point of species diversity in the gardens whose size is equal or slightly lower than 100 square meters (1,100 sq ft)": Long sentence and a bit hard to follow. Can you consider rewording? What does "hit a low point of species diversity" mean in this context?
The total amount of species within those types is either zero or nearly zero when it comes to gardens of such size (100m2 or less). Will rewording to "This considers that the amount of species within some plant types is zero, or nearly zero, in the gardens with maximum size of 100 square meters (1,100 sq ft). The affected types are trees higher than 10 meters (33 ft), spice plants, and industrial crops." be good?
  • Hmm I'm still not sure what it means. What do you mean "This considers ... "? Can we say, "Some plant types, such as trees higher than 10 meters (33 ft), spice plants, and industrial crops are almost not present in gardens of 100m2 or less"? HaEr48 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea - I'll adapt yours. :D (I thought "this considers" might be similar to "this is because". Is that a better alternative?)
  • What does this mean "Such gardens in Java tend to be smaller; the majority of them are smaller than 200 square meters"? By saying "such gardens" it implies you're talking about gardens mentioned in the previous passage (<100 m2), isn't it redundant to say they're also smaller than 200 m2? HaEr48 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "such gardens" to "home gardens" - thanks for pointing it out!
  • Leaf litter also helps soil sustainability: How about: Leaf litter also helps protecting the soil against erosion? Because it seems the focus of this paragraph. "Sustainability" is a broad concept.
Done.
  • Housing extension caused by population growth: Suggest: "Expansion of settlements to new lands, caused by population growth, .. " in order to make "housing extension" more specific
Done.
  • Plant species brought by internal migrants should adapt well: Can we replace "should" with a more appropriate word? e.g. "needs to"?
Done - I prefer "need to", assuming that "species" is plural in this case.
  • In general, I suggest removing words like "is considered to", "is believed to", "argued to", etc. … per WP:AWW. If it is important to attribute the statement to a specific opinion, then say whose opinion it is. Otherwise, we can just remove it because it usually just makes the sentence longer without any benefit. E.g. "Commercialization, fragmentation, and urbanization are considered to be major hazards to pekarangans' plant diversity"
Done - They are either deleted or attributed to a specific reference in the text.
  • Because rice is mentioned a lot in the article, I think it will be useful to add context that it is the dominant staple in Java (or Indonesia). Maybe in one of the first places where rice is mentioned we can insert something like … rice—the dominant staple of Indonesia—…
Done - see "Human Impact" section.
  • Integrated with local customs and philosophies such as rukun and tri-hita-karana: suggest adding translation of the non-English terms.
Explained in the "Culture" section.
  • In Madura, however, such home gardens are described as the domain of men: remove "such"?
Done.
  • Nevertheless, a pekarangan is considered a responsibility of the entire family, including their offspring and their own families: Are we still talking about Madura, or in general. Also what does "their own families' mean here?
Reworded to "Nevertheless, a pekarangan in general, regardless of the culture, is considered a responsibility of the entire family, including their offspring and the offspring's families." However, I'm not sure - please tell me if there's a better alternative.
  • Associations of plants in Javanese pekarangans tend to be more complex: Can you clarify what "Associations" mean here?
I linked "associations of plants" to plant community.
  • During the Dutch colonial era, pekarangans were referred to as erfcultuur: Suggest inserting it to the previous paragraph (in the right chronological order) rather than having this one-sentence paragraph.
Done.
  • Despite that, as of 2001, "the government [had not] paid attention" to recommendations to include them in national strategies: I think we need to attribute the source of this particular opinion/assertion. Also, I don't think the use of despite that is correct here. Suggest removing or replacing with a different conjunction.
It actually came from a working group report from a proceeding book, and is attributed to "Group C" (w/o describing who are the members of the group). Is it good to say "However/nevertheless, a statement/an account said that as of 2001...."?
  • I see. I suggest: However, in the words of a Second International Home Gardens working group report, "the government ..." HaEr48 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Forgot about this - sorry for that. About the attribution, I feel the more accurate attribution should be "in the words of a Second International Home Gardens Workshop working group report" but I feel that the words are exhaustively long. Besides, after I re-looked the report, there is no backing evidence supporting the stance of "government's inattention to include..." -- It's a mere statement standing on its own. I'm considering deleting the sentence instead. What do you think? Dhio (talk?) 14:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhiosk: I'm fine with deleting it, that seems a good option given the circumstances. HaEr48 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Deleted. :) Dhio (talk?) 01:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest replacing "Pekarangan programs" with "Government progam" because "Pekarangan" is redundant, and the programs described in the section all have to do with the government
Done.
  • Regional distribution. It seems that it dominant in Java but also present in other islands like Sumatra and Sulawesi. Is it possible to add a paragraph or a section discussing the regional distribution of pekarangan in Indonesia? If it can be found in reliable sources of course.
I haven't found a source discussing about the matter in a comprehensive way, so I'm not able to do that for now.
Also, note: I am planning to use this review to claim points for WikiCup.

-- HaEr48 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48:Thanks for the superb review - I'll try to respond more tomorrow. Best of luck for your WikiCup! Dhio (talk?) 13:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhiosk: Thanks for the response, I posted some follow ups above, and I'm waiting for the unresponded bullet points as well. HaEr48 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: All responded :D Dhio (talk?) 00:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. Looking very good now. Happy to support this nomination. HaEr48 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Dhio (talk?) 06:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Pleased to see this here - looking on track to pass. I will have another look a bit later..

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I see some stilted prose. Examples:

  • Pekarangans typically contain plants, while some possess animals (including farmed fish, ruminants, poultry, and wild animals) and structures such as pens and bird cages. The reader is going to expect a garden to contain plants, so the first clause doesn't need to be so declarative. "While" is being used oppositionally here, but the two things (plants and animals) are not really in opposition. The structures are listed as if they're independent of the animals that are kept in them, which isn't the case. More natural would be something like "In addition to plants, pekarangans may [or "often", if appropriate] contain fish, poultry, or other domestic or wild animals, along with their pens, ponds, or cages."
  • Yields of the gardens offer various uses: an odd use of "offer". Again I think this can be said more straightforwardly: "The gardens yield food for subsistence and income, and plants for ornamental use."
  • Some pekarangans are made, maintained, and spatially arranged according to local values. Too vague; I know we're summarizing here because it's the lead, but I really don't know what "spatially arranged according to local values" might mean.
  • Fragmentation is mentioned twice in two sentences in the second lead paragraph; the second use seems redundant.
  • Not really bad writing, but I think Problems such as pest outbreaks and a rise in household debts have appeared due to the degraded sustainability of the gardens would be easier on the reader if you reversed the order of the thought -- it's written as "A has been caused by B", but "B caused A" is a lot simpler -- "The reduced sustainability of the gardens has caused pest outbreaks and a rise in household debts". Though I should also comment that the degraded sustainability can't have directly caused a rise in household debts; it must be indirect, via reduced yields because of the pests, or something like that.

At this point I was thinking of opposing on prose grounds, so I decided to skip to the middle of the article and start reading there. The prose quality does seem a little better, but there are still some issues. Starting in the "Plants" section:

  • "intentional human intervention" -- I think you could safely cut "intentional".
  • ...usually in a household pen. These are usually ...: needs rephrasing to avoid the repetition (and there's another instance in the next sentence).
  • Villagers avoid the domestic use of fish pond water: I think you mean they don't use water piped to their houses to replenish the fish ponds, but as written it means they don't use the water that is in the ponds.
  • Otto Soemarwoto and Gordon Conway accounted that the gardens...: odd use of "accounted".
  • There are different findings in relation to wild birds. This is throat-clearing; it can go -- if you want a topic sentence, then it should make a statement, which this doesn't.

Jumping further down, to the "Human impact" section:

  • Harvesting of rice—the dominant staple of Indonesia—influence the use of pekarangans in some ways. Should be "influences", since harvesting is a singular subject, but as above this is too vague to be useful as a topic sentence.
  • Despite urbanization's negative effect in reducing their plant diversity, it increases that of the ornamental plants: I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say.

Oppose. I'm finding the article very interesting, but I think the prose is just not there yet. If this doesn't get promoted I'd be willing to work with you to improve the prose before another nomination. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi, I'm afraid that a list of issues such as the above coming after the nom has been open this long means we're still a good way from consensus to promote, so I'm going to archive this and suggest that you take up Mike's generous offer to work on the article outside the pressures of FAC, after which you could bring it back for another go. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pekarangan/archive1&oldid=951003102"