Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Lat/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lat

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My first BLP! It is about a cartoonist named simply Lat, short for bulat, which means round. This man is indeed a celebrity and for mostly the right reasons. He seems to have done nothing wrong (seriously, there is no reliable source that says otherwise) and is a respected figure in his country. Southeast Asian adults readily recognise his name. I was happy to find so much information on him (I had expected only his books and its introductions), especially those from scholarly sources. I am aiming for Featured Article for this and glady welcome any comments and criticisms that would help it achieve this. Jappalang (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I am carrying out a full copyedit, but there are a few points in the text which you need to address yourself. The following relate only to the first few sections; I will post more over the next few days, as I go through the article. Most of these are minor points; the article makes enjoyable reading.

The next instalment

  • After the Kampung Boy
    • "A year or so later..." Too imprecise. And there isn't an obvious time reference at the end of the previoud section
    • "One of the park's attractions is..." Presumably "will be", as the park doesn't open until 2011
    • "His last involvement with animation was in 2009..." As he's still with us, wouldn't it be better to say "most recent" rather than "last"?
    • "Aside from pulling a slight retreat from the cartooning scene..." "Pulling" in this context sound colloquial; I would say "Aside from retreating slightly from the cartooning scene..."
  • His art
    • "His" should not be in a section title, per "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated)" in MOS:HEAD
    • His portfolio was diverse" - shouldn't this be present tense?
    • "Lat started out drawing cartoons in Malay..." Do you draw in a language? Would it be more accurate to say "Lat's early cartoons, such as Tiga Sekawan and Keluarga Si Mamat, were captioned in Malay" or some such wording?
  • Later art style
    • "was reconciliatory of" is verbose and passive voice; why not "reconciled"? Also, "Rezda's judgement" might be better than "Redza's thought", and it is not clear to me which two views his "thought" reconciled.
    • "The art critic was not alone in having a high regard for Lat's works." Rezda or Lent?
    • I am unsure of the benefit of the quote box, which at present seems intrusive and also interferes with the adjacent image. Someone more adept than me can no doubt sort that out, but I am still unconvinced of its necessity.
      • I feel that Adibah's quote is an eloquent and succinct summary of the opinions on Lat's work. I dare not and find no way to summarise her view without hurting that eloquence, so I left it as a quote box. I fixed the formatting so that the box will not overlap with the image. I believe Adibah's quote (a local respected view) complement Lent's earlier thought (Western respected view), giving two cultural views of the author. Furthermore, it helped to set up a case for At a Sikh Wedding, illustrating Lat's particular sensitivity to the customs of other races. I did not set it up as a {{quote}} because I think the quote box makes for a nice break in reading (after all the earlier and before the later text) by giving an expressive opinion. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third instalment

(sorry this is short but I have other problems, e.g. TFA)

  • Sensitive topics
    • "The local political scene grew comfortable with Lat's caricatures..." Can a "scene" grow comfortable? And what is meant here by "local"? In the UK, local politics means parish-pump stuff. Do you mean Malaysian politics (as distinct from international)? Perhaps reword as "Malaysia's political class soon grew comfortable..." etc
    • "enough to compile into Dr Who?! (2004)" A published cartoon collection, presumably, but you should say so; "Dr Who" otherwise means something very different to the vast majority of Brits who watch TV.
    • "He heeds the advice of his mentor..." We need to be reminded of this mentor's identity.
    • The "Regardless" which begins the third sentence form the end looks unnecessary.
  • Interests and beliefs
    • First line "he revealed that listening to songs..." etc. Where did he reveal this?
    • The quote marks around "fashionable girls" don't seem quite right - I'd get rid of them, and replace "girls" with "young women".
    • You say "Malaysian society used to look down on cartoonists", implying that this was something in the past, but later in the paragraph we have "Despite the lowly reputation of his profession..." as though this still prevails. This needs clarification.
      • I meant "at that time" (now made explicit). However, he was proud at that time and remains proud till this day. Does the sentence now read better, or does it still remain confusing? Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally...
  • Influences and legacy
    • In general English usage, "branding" someone as something tends to have a negative connotation – "branded a liar" etc. Thus it might be better to say "styled" or other more positive verb.
    • The sentence "He has admirers in the cartooning field, local and abroad" reads very flatly, after the paeans of praise that precede it.
    • The paragraph break after "Rejhabad" does not look natural. It would be better to merge the paragraphs, and move the mage to the top of the section.
    • "...look to the cartooning industry for potential careers" - is it right to talk of a cartooning industry? "Profession", perhaps?
    • Self-evident sentences such as "Such cartoons did not help to sooth racial tensions that were simmering then" should be avoided. I have copyedit around here, to remove a POVish feel that was beginning to dominate.
    • Clarification: Was Lat made an Eisenhower Fellow during his second US visit, or had he received the honour previously? The sentemce needs to make the situation clear.
    • We do not need declarative sentences such as "Lat stands prominent among his country men." This account of his work and influence should make that clear. Likewise, phrases such as " was accorded the honour of being" are contrary to encyclopedic neutrality. Just "became" will do.
    • We don't need two accounts of his datuk award. One of the accounts should be edited out.
    • With respect, the "tale" told at the end of the article is corny. Exactly the same story is asserted about celebrities the world over. It may be true, but it is far from being unique. I'd drop it.

That's about it. I have had to fit this in around various activities (i.e. multi-tasking which I am not good at) and some of my reading and copyediting has been rather hurried. I think, when you have worked through my various points, it would be good to have a final copyediting pass before the article goes forward. I'll check out your earlier responses to this review later. I've enjoyed reading about Lat, and I'd like to get to know his work better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and copyedit. It highlighted failings of my writing and improved the article further. If you are interested in more of Lat's work, I have The Kampung Boy and Kampung Boy (TV series) up as well (heh). Jappalang (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Elcobbola (talk · contribs)

I'm concerned that there's overuse of non-free content. If I understand correctly from the current rationales, the aspects to be communicated are summarized as follows:

  1. Convey Lat's humor
  2. Convey sensitive/accurate portrayal of Malaysian culture
  3. Illustrate Lat's detail and care
  4. Illustrate handling of political topics

The five non-free images and the aspects they seem to cover are as follows:

Questions:

  • Image A has a purpose related to "multiple levels of humorous interpretations". Do the other images with rationales mentioning humor (B, C and E) not contain multiple interpretations themselves? If not individually, can some combination, taken as a whole, be described as containing "multiple levels of humorous interpretations"? Why are those images not sufficient to convey understanding of Lat's use of humor?
  • Image C has a purpose related to the "accuracy of cultural depiction the author" (i.e. Lat's detail, accuracy and incorporation of real life experience). Don't images B and D also accomplish this? B apparently handled a cultural aspect (an important ceremony) so well that it led to employment. Image D is described as having "naturally acute observation". Why are those images, individually or as a whole, insufficient for "readers [to] understand the accuracy of cultural depiction the author"?
  • If you were to remove A and C, the "mathematical" implication is that there's still redundancy with B covering 1 (also in E) and 2 (also in D). E, however, is an oddity, and I'm not sure it's really the same 1 as the others. Its success at number 4, however, is questionable. The rationale is poor "To help readers understand the humour imbued in this art that made its author's editor, Tan Sri Lee Siew Yee, laugh" isn't helpful. We can see the cartoon, but that in no way conveys the editor's thought process, or what about it caught his fancy. It's important to distinguish the notions of importance to the subject and importance to reader understanding. This cartoon was apparently the first of Lat's political cartoons to be published (significant to the author), but that's not knowledge we gain by seeing the image. An example of a political "style" and humor may be acceptable, but the current rationale doesn't really make a sufficient case for it. Эlcobbola talk 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image A was specifically used because Muliyadi's specific example was this cartoon; I have reworded the fair use rationale to point out that the image is to help further the reader's understanding of the Malaysian scholar's comments.
    • I have reworded Image E's fair use rationale—it is to illustrate his style, much of which is commented with quotes. Such quoted descriptions (and likely most readers' unfamiliarity with Malaysian traditional approach to political criticism) would be helped by this piece. There is another possible cartoon (that would also have critical commentary in the vein of Image A), and it features Dr Mahathir (also mentioned in the political cartoon section). Would this be a better choice?
    • I can see the redundancies between Images B and C (both on ethnic Malay culture). I am trying to illustrate Lat's sensitive/accurate approach to Malaysian Sikh culture (a different culture/race from his). Would it be better if I eliminated either B or C, and highlight D's purpose is to illustrate Lat's sensitivity to other races? Jappalang (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I'm struggling with conceptually is that there's an image with the perhaps singular purpose of depicting humor amongst other images which also depict humor. It does indeed, however, give context to the commentary, so I've been trying to sort out whether supplying that context is a purpose distinct from the former. I suppose I'm satisfied that it does if you're not aware of alternative, "multi-tasking" images.
      • The revised rationale resolved the issue with E; it just needed to more clearly articulate the elements being conveyed.
      • Image B is the image I believe to be the weakest. Perhaps try giving your proposed change a try and see how successful you believe the result to be. If it doesn't work we can go back to the proverbial drawing board. Эlcobbola talk 22:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Lat/archive1&oldid=386694333"