Talk:Khoo Kheng-Hor/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Just some minor issues before I can list this. I've given it a thorough copyedit, but still need some help with the following:
- What does "English-educated" mean? Is English not his first language? Please clarify and explain.
Done: Amended text for clarity. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Can the "Commendation" section be merged into others? It's pretty short on its own, and would probably be better without.
- Done. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please ensure all external links are up to date, and update the access date part of the references.
- Done. These are the previous accessed dates & I've already checked that its web links are fully functional prior to the article submission for GAN. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please update the retrieved dates to today. Thank you. how do you turn this on 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- For goodness sake, I've already checked that all the necessary links are fully functional to date! It's silly & superfluous to 'update' such dates as it's not part of the GAN requirements. Please focus on the substance of the matter, rather than emphasising on its form here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- It might not be part of GAN requirements, but the idea here is not to gain a special badge. We're supposed to be making articles better all the time, and updating the dates makes the article better. Links that look like they were checked for accuracy months ago aren't as good as ones checked today, are they? how do you turn this on 14:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- For goodness sake, I've already checked that all the necessary links are fully functional to date! It's silly & superfluous to 'update' such dates as it's not part of the GAN requirements. Please focus on the substance of the matter, rather than emphasising on its form here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please update the retrieved dates to today. Thank you. how do you turn this on 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please make sure EVERYTHING is referenced. There are large parts of prose without any source. This is ESSENTIAL, as this is about a living individual, and everything written here needs to be completely factual and based on solid references.
- It would be helpful if u could tell me specifically which line or section requires further citation? I'm no newbie to the GA project myself, or on the writing criteria for biographies, whether they are living persons or not. According to senior GA reviewers/sweepers I had interacted with previously - As a minimum rule of thumb, each paragraph are referenced, at the end with a cite that covers the content of the paragraph. Additional cites are provided as needed e.g. for quotes, financial figures, awards, controversial statements etc. but NOT at every line in a paragraph! Fyi, three biographies I wrote previously, which are similar in citation style like this article, were passed successfully to 'GA' status without any known citation issues during its reviews earlier. Pse take a look again. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Most sections have extremely sparse citations. There's nothing showing when he was born for example. Or where he had his education. Or when he got married. All facts that would be difficult to verify should have a citation at least. Phrases such as "the sky is blue" wouldn't need a citation, but "Xperson was born on nday, in xplace" does. how do you turn this on 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- For further clarity, I've added the requested citations for the 3 examples u mentioned above and others I think that may required, but I still find it hard to reconcile on your vague remarks: "Most sections have extremely sparse citations". Fyi, the added citations are derived from the existing references which already being cited at various end of line statements OR at end of a paragraph previously. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Most sections have extremely sparse citations. There's nothing showing when he was born for example. Or where he had his education. Or when he got married. All facts that would be difficult to verify should have a citation at least. Phrases such as "the sky is blue" wouldn't need a citation, but "Xperson was born on nday, in xplace" does. how do you turn this on 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to place this on hold to allow you to fix these things. Cheers how do you turn this on 15:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment from 4u1e
- Number and placement of refs look fine to me. 4u1e (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, that's what I've been trying to say all these while, but regretably, the reviewer failed to follow the official GAN rules, nor admit on hindsight earlier. Similar to another case I've encountered previously, he jumped onto the GA reviewer role too soon, without personally going thru' much GA reviews or underwent a proper mentorship himself, nor was he 'officially endorsed' by the GA Committee to date. As such, I'm concerned that such inexperienced reviewers would bring more harm rather than good to the GA Project, and not doubt, will see more headaches & disputes when challenged during future GA sweeps too. Thank you for your fair comment here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't be so grouchy about it. I've tried my best here, and have been pretty fair. I could have failed it, but didn't. I only suggested you added more refs, not demanded it from you. For goodness' sake, be grateful someone took the time to review it instead of moaning. how do you turn this on 14:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Refer to my consolidated reply below. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't be so grouchy about it. I've tried my best here, and have been pretty fair. I could have failed it, but didn't. I only suggested you added more refs, not demanded it from you. For goodness' sake, be grateful someone took the time to review it instead of moaning. how do you turn this on 14:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, that's what I've been trying to say all these while, but regretably, the reviewer failed to follow the official GAN rules, nor admit on hindsight earlier. Similar to another case I've encountered previously, he jumped onto the GA reviewer role too soon, without personally going thru' much GA reviews or underwent a proper mentorship himself, nor was he 'officially endorsed' by the GA Committee to date. As such, I'm concerned that such inexperienced reviewers would bring more harm rather than good to the GA Project, and not doubt, will see more headaches & disputes when challenged during future GA sweeps too. Thank you for your fair comment here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
GA review 2
[edit]First, a quick heads up, I know the nominator requested an experienced reviewer, which I am not. This is my second GA review. However I have been around wikipedia since Dec 2005, so I do have a handle on the various guidelines/policies.
Upfront, this article passes. The grammar is near perfect, I made one minor change with a comma which I felt was too unimportant to come here and ask the nominator to do. Other then that all spelling and grammar is correct as I can determine. You have enough sources, to verify everything in the article. The sources are well balanced between online sources and dead trees (books/print media).
My only suggestions to the authors are to consider expanding the article more, and perhaps find a few more sources and keep the page up to date and current. You may wish to be more consistant with the wikilinks, as I found in "diploma in Administrative Management and a Certified Diploma in Accounting and Finance (ACCA)", and later on "Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC)". Either wikilink the abbreviation or wikilink the full name, be consistant.
Overall, good job! If you have time, please consider reviewing an article for GA yourself. —— nixeagle 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Pse see my above reply to 4u1e too. If any new or latest reliable sources are available in future, I'll expand the content further, despite knowing that Khoo is living in recluse for many years now, and rarely give any public interviews to the media nowadays. As I'm semi-retired in Wikipedia now, I'm afraid that I've to turn down your suggestion (the fourth time so far) to help out as a GA reviewer, but I do help out in other ways whenever my commitments allow, or requests are made for my comment or action. On behalf of WikiProject Malaysia, I thank you for your prompt and fair review, and in passing this much deserved article into GA status now. Cheers! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- And what of the thank you for the review from myself? I gave the article a well needed copyedit, and brought up relevant points, and would have passed this myself, if not for the rudeness and grouchiness from the nominator. Reviewers don't need to be "officially endorsed" by the "GA community" - this is a wiki, remember? I think your comments here are pretty rude considering people don't do these reviews for a reward. Next time, be grateful anyone comes to look at your article. how do you turn this on 14:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've already thanked you for your efforts earlier, but no thanks to u for putting this review in limbo afterwards - I gave credit where credit is due. Why make your comments now & not during the 7 days hold period earlier? Why no follow-up action or even suggesting a second opinion when the hold period ended on Aug 14? Whether in my profession, National Service commitments, or volunteering my services here, I always learn & do my best in all my duties or projects seriously. Although I do not expect such commitment in return, I believe anyone would agreed with me that some decent level of fairness & accountabilty is at least expected on courtesy grounds! Whether one's action is right or wrong, or showing sincerity or not earlier, I'll let others such as the folks from the GA Project, WikiProject Malaysia, or even Mr Khoo himself etc, to make their own conclusion, or let karma tell the rest of the story for all to see later. Most importantly, one has to know to do the right thing, when the time is given to you. Consider yourself lucky that I did not pursue this matter further but I hope u would sit back and reflect on this episode, as well as the comments made by uninvolved editors, or else u may end up regreting what u have said earlier. Be mindful that one's goodwill & patience has its limits. On this note, I would like to end this conversation, as it's neither constructive nor productive to discuss any further, when this case has already been fully reviewed & concluded now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- As you can see from my contribs, I have been busy in real life, and have not had time to come back here. Two close relatives of mine have died within a week of each other, and I had to deal with that. You don't seem to care reviewers have other issues than your article to attend to. I find it laughable you'd consider taking this "further". To whom, exactly? An admin? Not an admin issue. GA talk? No, it wouldn't concern them - they'd just close the review themselves. No, I think that your clear impatience here when I had more important things in my life going on, clearly, is what is wrong here. I don't regret anything I said here. I don't say things unless I mean them. how do you turn this on 19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, we do have our own problems to contend with in real life, but one should be mindful of their own emotions, choice of words & action, & most importantly to face & bear its karma responsibly, esp on tasks that one has embarked on earlier, whether in real life or in Wikipedia. With respect to GAN rules, I've abided & waited for 7 full days, for your comment, follow-up action, or even a quick courtesy notice here, or on my talkpage like: "Sorry, I'm rather busy now but will come back on ?.??.?? to review them again". Due to pressing commitments & ad-hoc travels, I could not afford any long waits anymore nor be caught at the most inconvenient time to respond, as the nominated article was my final outstanding GAN task, as well as my due responsiblility & accountabilty to the folks at WikiProject Malaysia too. Failing to see any response, I proceeded to put a request for a closing review next. As any one can see, I did not bitch about the challenges I faced nor the time that I've been waiting at the GAN queue courtesy of the long backlogs earlier. You are either ignorant or shortsighted when u think that those are my available options should I choose (or provoked) to pursue the matter further? Don't try to 'paint' me or push your luck further - reread my comments carefully & exercise due diligence for your own good, if u want to hang around here in the long run. I meant what I said & will do according to what I said too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- As you can see from my contribs, I have been busy in real life, and have not had time to come back here. Two close relatives of mine have died within a week of each other, and I had to deal with that. You don't seem to care reviewers have other issues than your article to attend to. I find it laughable you'd consider taking this "further". To whom, exactly? An admin? Not an admin issue. GA talk? No, it wouldn't concern them - they'd just close the review themselves. No, I think that your clear impatience here when I had more important things in my life going on, clearly, is what is wrong here. I don't regret anything I said here. I don't say things unless I mean them. how do you turn this on 19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've already thanked you for your efforts earlier, but no thanks to u for putting this review in limbo afterwards - I gave credit where credit is due. Why make your comments now & not during the 7 days hold period earlier? Why no follow-up action or even suggesting a second opinion when the hold period ended on Aug 14? Whether in my profession, National Service commitments, or volunteering my services here, I always learn & do my best in all my duties or projects seriously. Although I do not expect such commitment in return, I believe anyone would agreed with me that some decent level of fairness & accountabilty is at least expected on courtesy grounds! Whether one's action is right or wrong, or showing sincerity or not earlier, I'll let others such as the folks from the GA Project, WikiProject Malaysia, or even Mr Khoo himself etc, to make their own conclusion, or let karma tell the rest of the story for all to see later. Most importantly, one has to know to do the right thing, when the time is given to you. Consider yourself lucky that I did not pursue this matter further but I hope u would sit back and reflect on this episode, as well as the comments made by uninvolved editors, or else u may end up regreting what u have said earlier. Be mindful that one's goodwill & patience has its limits. On this note, I would like to end this conversation, as it's neither constructive nor productive to discuss any further, when this case has already been fully reviewed & concluded now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- And what of the thank you for the review from myself? I gave the article a well needed copyedit, and brought up relevant points, and would have passed this myself, if not for the rudeness and grouchiness from the nominator. Reviewers don't need to be "officially endorsed" by the "GA community" - this is a wiki, remember? I think your comments here are pretty rude considering people don't do these reviews for a reward. Next time, be grateful anyone comes to look at your article. how do you turn this on 14:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)