Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indonesia/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept 07:23, 12 January 2008.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloane (talk • contribs) 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) This article should be improved more in order to re-consider itself as FA article:[reply]
- There is no source in the lead.
- Sources are not required in the lead - its just a summary of the article itself, no unique claims are made which require citations. (Caniago (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Sources should be given no matter it is a lead or the body of the article. Coloane (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We do provide the sources for any claims made in the lead : they're in the article body. (Caniago (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Sources should be shown not only in the lead but also the body of the article. In this case you do need to link the related reference(s) on the same reference(s). Coloane (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me a policy which supports your claim. (Caniago (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Please read WP:V. The very first line in the policy states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." There should be a couple citations in each paragraph at the least, especially to verify claims that are likely to be challenged.Coloane (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All our claims, including those in the intro are cited in the article. (Caniago (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- so you fully do not understand the concept of verifiability. Anyway, I am not going to make my comment here anymore so that I can go back to my operation room as I am a brain surgeon here. good luck! Coloane (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All our claims, including those in the intro are cited in the article. (Caniago (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Sources should be given no matter it is a lead or the body of the article. Coloane (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are not required in the lead - its just a summary of the article itself, no unique claims are made which require citations. (Caniago (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- size is relatively big that spliting this article into smaller, more specific articles is necessary.
- There is only 30KB of prose which is within the guidelines at WP:SIZE. (Caniago (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Guideline is guideline and it should be respected. Currently the size of that article is 82kbs. Coloane (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We do respect the guidelines: which with 30KB prose says "< 30 KB Length alone does not justify division" (Caniago (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- This article is currently 82kbs long. Did you check it carefully? Coloane (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have a tool which does it. You are not calculating the prose size correctly. (Caniago (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Don't try to confuse me. It is 82kbs. Period!
- You are plainly wrong. Here are the stats: File size: 241 kB, Prose size (HTML): 64 kB, References (HTML): 92 kB, Prose size (text only): 30 kB (4445 words), References (text only): 23 kB (Caniago (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Don't try to confuse me. It is 82kbs. Period!
- Yes, I have a tool which does it. You are not calculating the prose size correctly. (Caniago (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- This article is currently 82kbs long. Did you check it carefully? Coloane (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We do respect the guidelines: which with 30KB prose says "< 30 KB Length alone does not justify division" (Caniago (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Guideline is guideline and it should be respected. Currently the size of that article is 82kbs. Coloane (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only 30KB of prose which is within the guidelines at WP:SIZE. (Caniago (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- A clear stat didn't provide in the section of demography (i.e. ethnic group, languages, religion practise, etc)To.
- Have no idea what you are referring to. Please explain. (Caniago (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Please refer to the section and clearly there is no table to show the point(s).
- The points are more clearly explained with prose. (Caniago (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- You should provide a clear table to illustrate the % of each ethnic groups(that should not be in the section of culture) and language used as well. Coloane (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, our presentation matches other FA standard country articles. (Caniago (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- If you stubbornly claimed this as an FA standard, it is your personal view. Coloane (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, its the collective view of the people who have reviewed FA standard country articles. (Caniago (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- If you stubbornly claimed this as an FA standard, it is your personal view. Coloane (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, our presentation matches other FA standard country articles. (Caniago (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Please refer to the section and clearly there is no table to show the point(s).
- Have no idea what you are referring to. Please explain. (Caniago (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Too few external links provided.
- There are no requirements on the number of external links. We've provided only reliable external links as per WP:EL (Caniago (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- same as above. Links doesn't cover extensively. Coloane (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which links are missing? (Caniago (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- I am not obliged to let you know which links should be provided. There are currently 5 links are provided with 4 links are totally from "government". Coloane (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't tell us what we need do to improve, there's nothing we can do. (Caniago (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Again, I am not obliged to provide what link is situable and let you add the related links over there. You should judge by yourself. Coloane (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have judged it for ourselves - all the relevant links are already included. (Caniago (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Again, I am not obliged to provide what link is situable and let you add the related links over there. You should judge by yourself. Coloane (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't tell us what we need do to improve, there's nothing we can do. (Caniago (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- same as above. Links doesn't cover extensively. Coloane (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no requirements on the number of external links. We've provided only reliable external links as per WP:EL (Caniago (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- geography and ecology should be merged, it seems they are from the same category. Coloane (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No valid reason for a merge has been provided. The sections are fine to stand-alone. (Caniago (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Ecology and geography should be in 1 group. This article is only the introduction and details should not be over-informed. Coloane (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? (Caniago (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- ecology is a relatively specialised subject that should be removed and put it to another article like geography of Indonesia. Coloane (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, its an important part of the country. (Caniago (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- It is important but it doesn't mean that all details should be written in the introduction article. Coloane (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't include all details. Its a high level overview. (Caniago (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- It is important but it doesn't mean that all details should be written in the introduction article. Coloane (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, its an important part of the country. (Caniago (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- ecology is a relatively specialised subject that should be removed and put it to another article like geography of Indonesia. Coloane (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? (Caniago (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Ecology and geography should be in 1 group. This article is only the introduction and details should not be over-informed. Coloane (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No valid reason for a merge has been provided. The sections are fine to stand-alone. (Caniago (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Move to close From what I can see this is a well-written, well-sourced, neutral article. I see no reason to delist. Bogdan що? 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a section for voting keep or remove, please read the policy carefully. Coloane (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Close - per Caniago's comments above - nulified empty arguments against nomination, and per my comments on this being a bad faith pointy argument. In fact, this review should be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad faith pointy nomination
This is a bad faith nomination because of comments made to his Macau FAC. THis should be withdrawn or report to FAC. Each of his points are invalid - for example, the first one: the info and sources are all in the text. Stop wasting time. --Merbabu (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not related to FAR. Plus I don't know Caniago is from Indonesia. I think it is a co-incidence. I also put several reviews here like South Africa, Cape Town, etc. See below! there is no conflict of interest. Coloane (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see instructions at WP:FAR, Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not coincidence. You were discussing Indonesia with Caniago himself on the Macau user page. This is disruption only because caniago has opposed the nomination for Macau, your home town and an article for which you seem quite defensive about. --Merbabu (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is currently a tread open at 3RR regarding Coloane. I'm sure the administrators would be more than happy to hear any third party opinions. Cheers, Bogdan що? 04:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not related to FAR. Plus I don't know Caniago is from Indonesia. I think it is a co-incidence. I also put several reviews here like South Africa, Cape Town, etc. See below! there is no conflict of interest. Coloane (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Close - nominator has not shown a single issue that warrants a review. --Peter Andersen (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Close The concerns raised have been addressed/rebutted. DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.