Template:Did you know nominations/Proposed 2019 amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
None of the restructuring or other issues raised seem to have been addressed in subsequent edits during June and July, so closing as unsuccessful. Should this ever become a Good Article, it would be eligible to be nominated again, and presumably the issues would have been addressed for it to be so listed.

Proposed 2019 amendment to the Constitution of Malaysia

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that despite receiving no votes against, a 2019 Malaysian constitutional amendment bill failed to pass Parliament?
  • ALT1:... that a majority of Sabah and Sarawak residents have been waiting for 55 years for the return of their status until 2019 but instead a recent proposal for constitutional amendment been halted with the undecision made by a majority of opposition MPs?

Created by Night Lantern (talk). Self-nominated at 09:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC).

• Will be claiming this for review; I have struck ALT1 as being too long and too winding. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Took a quick look at it and the article is a bit long for a short review, but right now my concern is the "Background" section. It doesn't seem to present the material in a neutral way, and even seems to use some POV-ish language. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the review Mr. errr.. Naruto? Regarding the "background section", do you mean the POV on word such as "ignorance"? Seems I don't have idea on what choice of words that are very suitable for the replacement, mind to share some suggestion? Night Lantern^halo? 08:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This would include words that "Among the very sensitive breached agreement", "negligence", "cannot appreciate the diversity and decentralisation were connected in the process aside from the ignorance", which are not suitable for Wikipedia in their current form. One suggestion I could give could be to request for a copyedit of the article over at WP:GOCE/R; this could also prove useful as there are also quite a few grammatical errors in the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and requested a copyedit; this nomination should be put on hold until that is finished. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Naruto. Night Lantern^halo? 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Narutolovehinata5, I have rewritten the background section. There's still a lot of room for improvement, so it would still benefit from a GOCE lookover, but I believe it is an improvement in terms of POV. CMD (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll defer comment until the copyedit is accomplished given the sheer length of the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I received a message that the copyedit will not be finished due to concerns about copyright violations, as well as a general need for restructuring. Taking these into account, the article does not appear to be ready for DYK at this time. Sorry for the bad news. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

After the copy-edit by Mr. Blackmane, the percentage of copyright violation is about 37.9% based on data from Earwig's. I agree there still the need for sentence restructuring, thank you for taking your time to review the nomination. Many thanks to the copy editor as well. Night Lantern^halo? 00:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As I've been pinged, I'll add a few comments. The biggest problem (apart from copyvio) is the chronology is all over the place, especially with the use of sources. Some sources are used to discuss aspects that occurred before the vote, but the same source would also be used for aspects that occurred after the vote. This would be very confusing for the reader. I would suggest reconsidering the layout of the reaction section. Also, the responses sections needs a massive pruning, there's more material on the response than there is on the actual substance of the amendment. Just my 2 cents. Blackmane (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

References