Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sarawak/archive3

< 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) 11:38, 29 June 2017 [1].


Sarawak edit

Nominator(s): Cerevisae (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about everything in Sarawak, a territory at the northwest Borneo. Notable of its old rainforests, Mulu cave systems and orangutans. This article has undergone extensive peer-review and copyediting process. All the issues in the previous FA nominations have been addressed. Therefore, I have decided to renominate this article for FA review. Thank you. Cerevisae (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester edit

Interesting article! A few comments:
  • "By 1912, a total of five divisions had been established in Sarawak, each headed by a Resident." A link to Resident (title) is essential here, and possibly a short explanation of what the Resident did (it sounds like it was more-or-less equivalent to a colonial governor?) - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1928, a Judicial Commissioner, Thomas Stirling Boyd, was appointed as the first legally trained judge. However, unfamiliarity with local customs led to an advisory Supreme Council, mostly consisting of Malay chiefs, being created to provide guidance. This council is the oldest state legislative assembly in Malaysia, with the first General Council meeting taking place at Bintulu in 1867. - This bit confused me. When was the council created? After 1928, or before 1867? - The council is created when its first meeting took place in 1867. Cerevisae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the second sentence sounds a bit awkward due to passive voice, and it's not clear who made it. I'd reword it to say "However, due to unfamiliarity with local customs, [Someone] created an advisory Supreme Council, mostly consisting of Malay chiefs, to provide guidance." - Done Cerevisae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei People's Party, and Sarawak-based communist groups opposed the federation and in 1962, the Brunei Revolt broke out." This sentence is confusing because it mixes countries and parties. I'd say "The governments of the Philippines and Indonesia opposed the federation, as did the Brunei People's Party and Sarawak-based communist groups, and in 1962, the Brunei Revolt broke out." - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table of districts and subdistricts seems to be incomplete. For instance, the article on Kuching District says "It is subdivided into three subdistricts: Kuching Proper, Padawan and Siburan", but Siburan doesn't appear in the table. In general though, I don't think you actually need the table - if you do keep it, it would good to link to the articles on the districts themselves. -The table is complete, actually. The Siburan subdistrict had been transferred to "Serian Division" since 2015. All the links to districts have been added. Cerevisae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The regiment, renowned for its jungle tracking skills, served in the campaign to end the intertribal wars in Sarawak, engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Japanese, in the Malayan Emergency (in West Malaysia) and the Sarawak Communist Insurgency against the communists." A lot of commas and clauses make this sentence hard to read. Maybe deleting the "engaged" and adding an "in" before "Sarawak Communist Insurgency" would make it a bit clearer, but perhaps it would be better as two sentences. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sarawak coastline is covered with mangrove and nipah forests, comprising two percent of the total forested area in Sarawak, and is most commonly found in the estuarine areas of Kuching, Sarikei, and Limbang." I think this should be something like "...and these forests are most commonly found..." - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 110 and 111 are identical! Having four cites in a row looks a bit messy, so you should bundle these. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A rail project was announced in 2008 to be in line with the transport needs of SCORE, but as yet no construction work has begun despite an anticipated completion date in 2015." Any update here? - No more updates from the project again but the Sarawak government proposed a new LRT project this year. Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pagan Animism was the traditional religion among the Melanaus, but over time as the Islamic rule of the Bruneian empire dominate, 73% of the population is now identify as Muslims." This sentence sound a bit strange. "but due to the dominance of the Islamic Bruneian empire" maybe? Also, the citations in this sentence are weird. Why is one a footnote? - Done. The footnote is used to specify the exact page that the sentence is coming from, so readers can find the reference faster. Cerevisae (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the ethnic Chinese originate from a variety of backgrounds and speak many different dialects such as Hokkien, Hakka, Foochow, and Teochew and also the Standard Chinese." This seems to be a sentence fragment - is something missing, or does it just need rewriting? - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hope these comments are useful! Smurrayinchester 09:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Cerevisae (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second point, about the creation of the Supreme Council, is still not resolved to my satisfaction - it still talks about an event that happened in 1867 as if it happened as a result of something done in 1928. If the Supreme Council came before Thomas Stirling Boyd was appointed Judicial Commissioner then it should come first, or not be connected to him. All the other points look good. Smurrayinchester 13:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smurrayinchester: Issue addressed. The appt of legal judge happens after the first general council meeting.Cerevisae (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! All looks good to me. Smurrayinchester 11:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's comments Support edit

I'm deeply disappointed this was nominated for FAC before Sabah. I look forward to this lamentable lapse being rectified in the future :P (I'm biased because I've been to Sabah and not Sarawak, but I look forward to rectifying that lamentable lapse in the future!).

  • and the independent state of Brunei in the northwest. Brunei is to the west of Sabah but I'd struggle to call it to the northwest of Sarawak. I'd rephrase. - Then I call it north of Sarawak. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 16th century, the Kuching area was known to Portuguese cartographers as Cerava, one of the five great seaports on the island of Borneo.[26][27] By the early 19th century, the Bruneian Empire was in decline The empire is introduced as being in decline over the area - you really need to introduce it as being in the area at all before you do that. The article is a little biased towards colonial and post colonial history, so maybe flesh out pre-colonial history out a bit if you can. - Mid 15th century, Brunei controlled coastal regions of Sarawak before declining in 19th century. Most of the details are dedicated to the Bruneian Empire itself, so there is no mention on what happened in Sarawak during Brunei's rule. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you need to summarise it briefly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: There are few contemporary sources dealing with the Bruneian Empire, as noted in its own article. I have reordered the statements as you wanted them though. Parcly Taxel 09:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do a good job of explaining the expansion of the Brooke rule, but the statement and brokered a peace in Marudi. cries out for a little more context. - Done.Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and became federated with Malaya, North Borneo, and Singapore to form the federation of Malaysia it's unclear what is meant by North Borneo in this context. Sabah? Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak? Maybe unimportant but would be helpful to clarify. -Done. Clarified as Sabah Cerevisae (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, there are several Sarawak–Kalimantan border issues yet to be settled with Indonesia this begs the question about what they are. If they are uninteresting or of low import, maybe rephrase There are also several Sarawak–Kalimantan border issues with Indonesia or similar. -Done Cerevisae (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dominant trees in the peat swamp forests are: ramin, meranti, and medang jongkong. I would link to the articles for these trees if you're going to use the local rather than scientific or English names, as you can't search for them in EN:WIKI - Done. Added scientific names.Cerevisae (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The state is the habitat of endangered animals, including the borneo pygmy elephant, proboscis monkey, orangutans and rhinoceroses. I'd name the rhino species (Sumatran Rhinoceros)
I'll finish my review tmrw. In general though this is a good article and I don't see many problems in getting it featured. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC) - Done.Cerevisae (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Definitely Sabah will achieve FA soon, because the article is much more detailed and the state is more well-known to the tourists when compared to Sarawak. Cheers. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarawak has a large immigrant work force with as many as 150,000 registered migrant workers working as domestic workers or in plantation, manufacturing, construction, services and agriculture Are these international migrants? (I ask because it's noted earlier that migration from other states is regulated. -Done. Cerevisae (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Yes, they are foreign migrant workers from other countries.[reply]

Otherwise I'd like you to address one more point above, but still I'll Support. Good stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support Sabine's SunbirdCerevisae (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: I think that this article has reached the FA status. Your help in closing this FA review and formally promote it to Featured Article is very much appreciated, thank you and have nice day. Regards. Cerevisae (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, FACs require a minimum of 3 supports, plus an image and source review. So this one has a little way to go yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review, support (Parcly Taxel) edit

I live in Singapore, not far from Sarawak…

Therefore all the images are under free licences or public domain. The captions are also short, sweet, descriptive and related to the surrounding text; the images themselves are neither too few nor too many and complement the text. So the article passes on the images.

Parcly Taxel, thanks for your extensive image review. :-) Cerevisae (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Second-last paragraph of History section: Thousands of Sarawak communist members went into Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo, and underwent training with the Communist Party of Indonesia. The most significant engagement of the confrontation was fought at Plaman Mapu in April 1965. The defeat at Plaman Mapu ultimately resulted in the fall of Sukarno and he was replaced by Suharto as president of Indonesia. Negotiations were restarted between Malaysia and Indonesia and led to the end of the confrontation on 11 August 1966. Needs a source (or is it already covered in the preceding sentences? If so you can clone the references to here).

The source review is finished and they are all completely fine except for the one issue I pointed out above; once that is fixed I'll support. I've corrected some minor typographical errors along the way. Parcly Taxel 04:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Parcly Taxel:, citation added. Cerevisae (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. All sources are reliable, formatted with citation templates and archived where things have changed. I've changed the wording of some passages too, further addressing the close paraphrasing issues in the second FAC nomination of this article and which I believe have been suitably addressed in the time afterwards. Therefore I support. Parcly Taxel 18:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! :-) Cerevisae (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D edit

It's always good to see a high quality article on a 'big' topic such as a state. I have the following comments:

  • "The Gawai Dayak is an annual festival celebrated on a public holiday, and a lute called sapeh is a traditional musical instrument." - this looks out of place in the lead
    Well it does seem out of place. I've removed that. Parcly Taxel 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British forces retreated to Singkawang in Dutch Borneo bordering Sarawak." - it was previously stated that the garrison had been withdrawn to Singapore - which is correct?
    Read closely. It said that the air and marine forces were withdrawn. Thus the ground troops must have been left to defend against the Japanese invaders, which I've added in as a clarification. Parcly Taxel 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That clarification was added after I posted the review. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author of Australia in the War of 1939-1945. Series 1 - Army - Volume VII - The Final Campaigns (Gavin Long) should be identified in the citation
    You've done it already. Parcly Taxel 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't make that change. Why are you posting ill-informed responses to my comments? Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick-D: I must have been confused while editing the article in response to your comments together with Cerevisae; this includes the immediately preceding point. I am sorry for that. Parcly Taxel 11:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the history section effectively stop in the 1960s?
    - Developments after 1960s are already addressed in the Government, Economy, and Infrastructure sections. Cerevisae (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose so, but it does seem surprising that there's nothing worth mentioning. I suppose it says a fair bit about the one-party state and the country's generally positive economic sitution. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Government' section should make it clearer how the government is formed (eg, that the state is - at least nominally - a democracy)
    - democractically elected state assemblymen Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Sarawak's democracy rigged like that for the national government? - the fact that the governing party has never lost an election implies so.
    -Added the allegations of vote buying. Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Divisions and districts' section should note whether the positions described are filled by appointees or through elections (or a mix of both)
    - Except for state assemblymen, all other positions in Sarawak are appointed. Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarawak has land and maritime disputes with neighbouring Brunei" - given that the previous paragraph notes that the Malaysian Government now handles foreign affairs, wouldn't this be a dispute between Malaysia and Brunei rather than the state and Brunei?
    - Yes, it is a dispute between Malaysian government and other countries, but border disputes is located at Sarawak borders. Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with average daily temperature varying between 23 °C (73 °F) in the morning to 32 °C (90 °F) in the afternoon" - is there a specific location this applies to? This also implies a uniform climate, which seems unlikely given the geography - are the highlands cooler than the lowlands?
    - Added highland temperatures.Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the 'Economy' section, how do living standards / GDP per capita in Sarawak compare to Malaysia as a whole - are the citizens richer or poorer? Are there notable differences in wellbeing across the state?
    - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The latter two are satellite campuses of Curtin University in Perth and Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia" - while uncontroversial and correct, this sentence needs a reference Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done.Cerevisae (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport My comments are now addressed - nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber edit

First of all, kudos in tackling a subject as broad as this. The lead looks good.

The generally-accepted explanation of the word "Sarawak" is that it is derived from the Sarawak Malay word serawak, which means antimony. - a bit repeititve but hard not to be for obvious reasons, I'd tweak to "The generally-accepted explanation for the state's name is that it is derived from the Sarawak Malay word serawak, which means antimony."
"Saya serah pada awak" (I surrender it to you), when he gave Sarawak to James Brooke in 1841. - add who/what Brooke was at the time.
However, the latter explanation is flawed - "flawed" is not a word, I'd use, I'd just say, "wrong/incorrect"

Actually, article looks really good overall. Well balanced ( a feat in itself given the size and breadth of the article), and prose good enough to make me forget I was supposed to be checking it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick-D and Cas Liber, thanks for your support. I have addressed the comments by Cas Liber. Cerevisae (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Given that concerns were expressed by Graham Beards at the last FAC about close paraphrasing, I'd like someone experienced in this area just to give this the once over before we think about promotion. I should also point out that issues were found in places that weren't directly cited as well, so I'd be grateful if someone could check this too. It might be best to put a request at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I believe I went through this prior; while checking the references and prose I copy-edited the article to break up close paraphrasing. Earwig's detector does not turn up anything significant after my edits, with the great majority of similarities being small and coincidental. Parcly Taxel 01:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. But as fairly major concerns were expressed, I'd just like another set of eyes on it. Maybe Casliber could have a quick look as well? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Blackmane already fixed the issue of close-paraphrasing from March to mid-May. Cerevisae (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that this is correct, based on a comparison. also earwigs clear otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Comments from an IP" edit

This was left on my talk page by an IP. It raises a few valid points, so I'm posting it here, with a little pruning of things not directly relevant: Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. I first got involved with Wikipedia about 10 years ago
2. My involvement with Wikipedia dates back about 10 years.

In this context, the words "ago" and "back" are synonyms. Take a look at paragraph two in the lead. The first sentence reads: "The earliest known human settlement in Sarawak, located at the Niah Caves, dates back to 40,000 years ago". The error here is one a schoolkid could spot.

Done. Parcly Taxel 23:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere in the article we are told that Sarawak became a British Crown colony on 1 July 1946. The source for this (reference #54) is the Daily Mail. Yes, really. The link has been archived, but is blocked by a robots.txt file. Try it and see.

I've replaced that reference with the 1997 Porritt book. Parcly Taxel 01:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the "rate of deforestation is 3.5 times higher than found in neighboring Asian countries". Two sources are given, only one of which (the Daily Telegraph) discusses comparatives rates. The Telegraph's headline is "Malaysia destroying its forests three times faster than all Asia combined". Do you see the problem here? The author of this Wiki article is comparing Sarawak's deforestation to neigboring countries; the Telegraph talks about "all Asia combined". And why is an issue as important as this sourced to a newspaper rather than a peer-reviewed academic study?

Cerevisae I invite you to correct this issue. Parcly Taxel 02:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
14.207.36.231, Sarawak is known to bar its critics from entering the state. So, studies can only be conducted from Google Earth images. Besides, you also noticed that the statement in the Telegraph newspaper is quoted directly from the source (Wetlands International report). I see no problem with that. You know that Wetlands International is a notable organisation. Its report should be reliable. The most recent report I can find is from the Wetlands International. If you can find another recent one with "peer-review" quality, I would be very grateful to you. Thanks. I also tried to find any state government response to this article for the sake of neutrality but to no avail. If you can really find one, I would be very thankful to you too. Thank you again. Special thanks to Parcly Taxel for helping me to address the issues. Cerevisae (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a bit better if you (or someone else – ping them all?) could get the original Wetlands International report and use that as the reference (I couldn't find it on first search). I do think this is minor though; we should be ready to promote. Parcly Taxel 12:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parcly Taxel I have already included the original report in the citation in addition both the newspapers citations. Cerevisae (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check this paragraph

Sarawak has a number of national parks including Niah National Park, within which the Niah Caves are located, and Lambir Hills National Park, known for its various waterfalls. The Gunung Mulu National Park, which was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2000, is also located in Sarawak. The park is known for Sarawak Chamber, one of the world's largest underground chambers, Deer Cave, the second largest cave passage in the world, and Clearwater Cave, the longest cave system in Southeast Asia.

1. The phrase "a number of national parks" is meaningless. Why not be specific? How many national parks does Sarawak have?
2. Why the need to tell us that the Gunung National Park "is also located in Sarawak"?
3. Notice the repetition re: "known for".
4. What does "various waterfalls" mean? Are we talking about quantity or variety?
All points addressed. Parcly Taxel 02:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14.207.36.231 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You now have:

Varying claims have been made regarding the area of forest coverage remaining in Sarawak. Former chief minister Abdul Taib Mahmud has stated that between 2011 and 2012 Sarawak's forested land area fell from 70% to 48%. In contradiction with Taib, Resource Planning and Environment Second Minister Awang Tengah announced in 2012 Sarawak was 80% forested area. The Sarawak Forest Department also held that the forest cover was 80% in 2012. According to Wetlands International 10 percent of all Sarawak forests and 33 percent of peat swamp forests were cleared between 2005 and 2010. This rate of deforestation is 3.5 times higher than found in all Asian countries combined.

My version is:

According to Wetlands International 10 percent of Sarawak's forests and 33 percent of peat swamp forests were cleared between 2005 and 2010, a rate 3.5 times higher than all Asian countries combined. Varying claims have been made regarding the extent of forest coverage remaining. Former chief minister Abdul Taib Mahmud has stated that between 2011 and 2012 the state's forested land area fell from 70% to 48%, while the Sarawak Forest Department and Ministry for Resource Planning and Environment maintained that as of 2012 forest cover stood at 80%.

I've switched the chronology and stripped out repetition / redundancy. If you want the moderator, Sarastro, to promote your article, ask him. IMO it's currently an Oppose. If you want me to help I could do 30-60 minutes per day over the next 7-10 days, but we'd need to re-write almost every paragraph and iron out several more factual errors. 14.207.36.231 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Parcly Taxel 03:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are thirty national parks, including those at Niah with its eponymous caves, Lambir Hills with its many waterfalls, and the World Heritage Site of Gunung Mulu. The last contains Sarawak Chamber, one of the world's largest underground chambers, Deer Cave, the second largest cave passage in the world, and Clearwater Cave, the longest cave system in Southeast Asia.

1. Notice the repetition re: "with its".
2. The source for Lambir Hills does indeed mention waterfalls, but begins by telling me that "Lambir Hills National Park is probably the world’s most complex and diverse forest eco-system". In a tourism-oriented article you could get away by focusing solely on waterfalls; for something more encyclopedic you need to mention this intricate ecosystem. Note that my word "intricate" is a possible replacement for "complex and diverse".
3. You tell us that Deer Cave is the world's second largest. The source tells me that "When you reach the cave entrance you are left in no doubt that you are about to enter the largest cave passage in the world." The word "second" is not present in the source. 14.207.36.231 (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All points addressed, but lest you flare up again: I can help, but I did not nominate this article nor did I copyedit it prior. I also do not have much familiarity with the sources as Cerevisae should have and I'm working on the lead FAC too. Parcly Taxel 08:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) the points are valid. I concede I am good at big-picture but my eye for detail can be lacking at times. I did think the material on logging and forests needed good sourcing and concede I skimmed over this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you and he are in email correspondence should not mean that block evasion gets a free pass.
These comments were just removed (ironically, by another anonymous IP). I have replaced them. All the points are valid and related to the FA criteria. I'd be grateful if they could be left where they are, at least for now. To be blunt, the identity, or otherwise, of any IPs are not a matter for FAC. I think our priority here should be the quality of this article. Any further discussion of this IP needs to take place elsewhere. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than edit-warring, it might be better to wait to see what happens at ANI. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Parcly Taxel, for your help. It is tiring to address the unending issues of this article. Hopefully, after this checking by Mike Christie and Singora (if able to comment on this page), there will be no more issues for this article. Cerevisae (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'll add comments as I read through. Please revert my copyedits if I screw anything up.

  • "Sarawak, along with Sabah and Brunei, became a British protectorate in 1888. This agreement granted Britain jurisdiction over Sarawak's foreign affairs but administration was still handled by the Brooke government. Towards the latter half of the 19th century, Charles Anthoni Brooke succeeded his uncle as the next White Rajah of Sarawak." Not sure why you don't give the date of succession, but since it's 1868 these events are out of chronological order; I'd suggest reversing the sentences and giving the year.
Done. Parcly Taxel 10:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map showing the sequence of territorial expansion is excellent, but I was surprised because I had no idea from the text that the initial land ruled by Brooke was so small in comparison to the modern state. I think this should be made clearer in the early part of the history section.
    Done. Added (now known as Kuching) to clarify on the matter.Cerevisae (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that doesn't do it, since the reader is likely to think that Kuching was then the name for the entire area now known as Sarawak. How about "...was well rewarded with antimony, property and the governorship of Sarawak, which at that time only referred to an area of a few square miles [or whatever the size was] around the town of Kuching", or something along those lines? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Parcly Taxel 10:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked it a bit, but now the problem is that the statement about the extent of the land is unsourced. Presumably there's a source for what is shown in the map gif; can we use that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who would become Rajah Muda in 1939": the article does not explain that this means he was heir apparent.
Done. Parcly Taxel 10:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[In 1941] a new constitution was introduced that would limit the power of the Rajah and granting the Sarawak people a greater role in the functioning of government": the source says "the introduction of a democratic Constitution" which is later described as being "based on democratic principles". I think this is not enough to support the sentence as written. Also, the article 1941 constitution of Sarawak (which is unsourced) says that the constitution was never actually implemented; if so, we should say so. A look in some Google Books sources finds other references to it only being preparatory, e.g. Frans Welman, Borneo Trilogy, volume 1 p. 177, though I don't know if that's a reliable source for our purposes.
    Done. I used the hansard at the UK parliament to support the sentences. Cerevisae (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a much better source, and it fully addressed the first sentence. For "this constitution was never fully implemented due to the outbreak of the Pacific war" it says "...enacted a new Constitution.... This process was interrupted by the Japanese invasion and occupation". There's not much of a time gap between the outbreak of war in the Pacific and the Japanese invasion, but I think it would be better to be specific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this, which I think you can cite; it's a bit clearer than the source you have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed it to "due to Japanese occupation" and added the source.Cerevisae (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck. I think it needs a little copyediting but that can wait. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this time it was divided into three provinces – Kuching-shu, Sibu-shu, and Miri-shu": unless I'm missing it, this information is not in the source provided. I also recall seeing something in one of the sources I found when looking for information about the 1941 constitution to the effect that the Japanese left the existing administrative structure almost completely intact; perhaps they simply renamed the provinces, but the current wording makes it sound as though they set up a new structure.
    Under Brooke, Sarawak was divided into five divisions, but under Japanese rule, Sarawak was divided to 3 divisions only, but otherwise the Japanese retained the government structure intact. Anyways, I have re-added the sources.Cerevisae (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I can't see the source page in Google Books but I'll take your word for it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sarawak was immediately placed under British Military Administration until April 1946": the source says "Sarawak...was immediately placed under British Military Rule administered by the Australian Military until 15 April 1946", which doesn't make it clear whether it was the British Military Rule or the Australian involvement that lasted until 1946. It would seem more likely to be the latter given that the next governmental transition quoted is the cession, which doesn't pass till May and doesn't take effect till July.
    Added another reference in support of the statement. BMA under the management of Australian forces seems to be true.Cerevisae (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the second source helps -- it only seems to talk about the Australians in Labuan. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I switched to another reference. Is it ok? Cerevisae (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cerevisae, I have to admit I'm baffled. Are you perhaps not a native English-speaker? I don't see support there, either, but you're clearly acting in good faith so I think we must have a communications issue. The statement as it stands is unclear about the sequence of events, and the new source doesn't clarify that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thousands of Sarawak communist members went into Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo, and underwent training with the Communist Party of Indonesia. The most significant engagement of the confrontation was fought at Plaman Mapu in April 1965. The defeat at Plaman Mapu ultimately resulted in the fall of Sukarno and he was replaced by Suharto as president of Indonesia. Negotiations were restarted between Malaysia and Indonesia and led to the end of the confrontation on 11 August 1966." This is cited to pp. 86-87 of Ishikawa, Noboru; Between Frontiers: Nation and Identity in a Southeast Asian Borderland, but I don't see any mention of Plaman Mapu there.
    Added "Savage Wars of Peace: Soldiers' Voices, 1945-1989" as the source.Cerevisae (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of time tonight; I should have more time tomorrow and will try to finish the review then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, take your time, do check as thoroughly as possible. Cheers. :-) Cerevisae (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another point above, and am still going through the article, but I have to say I'm becoming slightly concerned about the sourcing. Most of the points I've raised above are straightforward cases where the source doesn't support the information given in the article. It's not that I think the article is inaccurate, but it has to be sourced accurately for it to pass FAC. I am not opposing at the moment because (a) everything I'm raising is being fixed quickly, and (b) there appear to be no factual errors, but I think a thorough review of the sources is necessary. I will continue to go through the article, but if someone else could volunteer to help, perhaps by dividing up the article, that would make it go much faster -- source checking is a slow process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far better with prose and layout than with references. I can definitely help, but I may not have access to some of the listed references, so I may only be able to report on which individual references are reliable/confirmed or not. Parcly Taxel 11:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new list:

  • "To guard against future uprisings, a series of forts were constructed to protect Kuching, including Fort Margherita, completed in 1871. By that time Brooke's control of Sarawak was such that defenses were largely unnecessary" is cited to an article in the New York Times by a financial journalist; essentially a travelogue piece. The NYT is generally reliable source, of course, but I don't think it's appropriate for a historical summary when it's clearly written by a non-expert. I think a better source should be used. That source is also used to support mentioning the Sarawak Museum, and I think it's fine for that.
  • The mention of Stewart's assassination followed by "Despite the resistance" makes it sound as though he was assassinated before Sarawak became a Crown Colony, but in fact it was three years later.
  • "He was only allowed to return 17 years later after Sarawak had become part of Malaysia". The source does not say this.
  • "In 1950 all anti-cession movements in Sarawak ceased after a clamp-down by the colonial government": this is not supported by the given source, at least not on page 10, and is directly contradicted by the obit for Anthony in the Telegraph. Neither of these sources -- an obit 60 years later, and a colonial administrator's memoirs -- are the right sort of source for this.

I'm going to stop here and Oppose. Sorry; I can see a lot of work has gone into the article, but when I find this many problems in such a short stretch (I'm still in the History section) I don't feel I can do anything but oppose. I would not be comfortable with this article being promoted without some reassurance that the sourcing has been thoroughly reviewed, for the entire article. That's not something that can be effectively done at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I give up already. Sarastro1, please close this FA nomination and fail this article against FAC. Cerevisae (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments to Mr Cerevisae edit

I left some more comments last night on the talk pages for Mr Cerevisae, Mr CaslIber and Mr Sarastro.

Mr Cerevisae -- I read your comments here and on your talk page. I'm sorry to see you're quitting, but you're doing the right thing: everything will need to be re-checked. Do remember you got four supports. Once the sources are in order you'll be able to take the article further. IMO, Wikipedia's best featured article about Malaysia is currently the piece I wrote last year about George Town's Seri Rambai cannon. But if you can sort out the issues in this Sarawak piece (and I'm sure you can) it'll be you rather than me that graces the summit of Mount Olympus. Go for it, and good luck to you. AuricGoldfinger (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AuricGoldfinger for your encouragement. I don't mind anybody take credit if he/she is able to bring this article to FA article status. Besides, I believed I have reached my limitations on bringing this article to FA. Apart from that certain history sections in Sarawak are not well researched by historians so there are conflict of facts such as British military administration being administration by Australian and the year the anticession movement in Sarawak ended. Cerevisae (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2017 (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/Sarawak/archive3&oldid=788188733"