Wikipedia:Peer review/Sultan Iskandar of Johor/archive1

Sultan Iskandar of Johor

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. Ive significantly expanded the article for the entire month, throughout January and added whatever necessary citations to contentious points wherever I deem necessary and relevant. Certainly welcome to gramatical edits, but not removing verified facts as per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and any edits of these source pls write in the talk page and suggest reasons for its need. If possible, drop me a note in my talk page notifying of any major factual changes.

Certainly, no sources come from blogs in the article--even if there might be, they are co-supported by a book source, or newspaper article or research paper. May have bias in the person himself, but the Sultan himself was reputed for his past notorious deeds--although some good points are added wherever possible and relavant. Ultuimately, hope to aim for featured article status.

Interested users are also welcome to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Malaysia.

Thanks, Mr Tan (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

It is a good thing to have a Malaysia-related article in the encyclopedia. I believe there are not enough of them. However, as it stands at present this article has problems which in my view place it some way below the standards of a Good Article, let alone those of a serious featured article candidate. The article is comprehensive and has clearly been the subject of much research. Its main problem areas can be summed up as (1) presentation and (2) prose. There are also MOS-related issues, and questions such as the correct formatting of references.

• Presentation issues: Examples:–
  • Citations in the lead: One of the main purposes of the lead section is to draw readers into the article. How the lead looks is therefore important. So, what is the purpose of having four separate citations for the first mention of the Sultan's name? This chain of references, right at the start of the article, is unsightly and off-putting. In fact, it is usually good practice to try to minimise the number of citations in the lead, keeping these for when the information is raised in the body of the article. Having nearly 20 citations in the lead is overdoing it.
  • Over-complex infobox: I am not in general a fan of infoboxes; if they are used I believe that they should contain minimal information, leaving as much as possible to be described in the text. This one has way too much information – the names of all 10 children, the "anthem" – and the order the information is quite confusing; why, for example, is his name given well down the list of information? I would certainly recommend reducing and reorganising the infobox.
  • Names written out in full: I accept that the format for Malaysian names may be different from that in Europe, but surely it is not necessary to write out the full twelve words of his mother's style and name? She must have been known by something a bit more convenient. Similarly, does the title Yang Di-Pertuan Agong have to be written out in full at each mention? In the second paragraph of the Sultan of Johor section this title is repeated in full four times, which makes for difficult reading. Is there no short form?

• Prose issues: I imagine that the main editors are not native English speakers. I strongly advise, whether or not this is the case, that you find someone with good prose skills to look at this article's prose. There is no point in my trying to point out the mistakes; they occur in most sentences. There are numerous faults of grammar, vocabulary and punctuation, that must be corrected if this article is to have any chance of promotion to GA or FA.

• Other issues
  • There are style violations. A template on the talkpage says the article uses British English, yet the dates are largely presented in US–style. There are inappropriate capitalisations (e.g. "Primary" and "Secondary", yet "tertiary", "Amateur Golf", etc.) Some terms that require links are not linked (e.g. Cornish).
  • On-line references require in each case, minimally, title, publisher and access date. Not all give this information. The list of references is I believe a list of printed sources, but it needs to distinguish between books and journals, perhaps by using sublists.

If I could find the time, I would be pleased to help with the prose, because I believe articles like this should be encouraged. Unfortunately I am somewhat over-committed, so it would be best for you to find someone else. I will keep the article on my watchlist, and will follow its progress. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(Let me touch on the issue of the lead citations): As an avid reader of wikipedia, I have witnessed frequent edit wars involving the contention of a person's name--especially in the case of Malay Muslim names which many people in the Western world do not understand. Take Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor for instance, (Im not sure if I did actually tried editing the name part), but for a Malay Muslim article my attempts to add a person's full name are usually reverted--in this case Shukor's name full name would have been Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor Al Masrie bin Sheikh Mustapha--even though the "bin sheikh mustapha" is his father's name, nevertheless I saw a trend in many Malaysian Malay articles with users only conforming to "Sheikh Muzaphar Shukor" alone.

Ah, found two edits of diff dates on the same article: [1] and [2]. The problem is, what most western-based users do not appreciate the fact that the "bin something" consists part of a person's full name, in this case a Malaysian Malay Muslim. Take for example, Bill Clinton, his full name "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton" is less contended given the predominance of western based users compared to Malaysian based users. Hence the need to provide citations in contentious names is necessary, especially if doubts among wikipedian users can be raised. Point Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Dealing_with_citation_problems--a safety measure, in my interpretation.

Another issue is the issue of variants of a spelling in a name which would require priority attention. Example, his first name "Mahmud" is often spelled as "Mahmood"[3] in the western press--the former being less widely used. Again, on the issue of names, noted personalities would not always like to make their stand clear on the actual spelling of their names--considering the trival nature of the reports in some cases. Now then, how are we to get a source that outright states the spelling of his first name? To avoid confusion, certain Noted Statements might have to be made and preferably a local source--example, [4] be provided.

Another issue is the irregularity of how to go about addressing him--are we to use "Sultan Mahmud Iskandar" or "Sultan Iskandar"? If no credible sources are cited to the intro paragraphs to set the precedent on how the subject is to be addressed, inconsistencies could arise, given the dynamic nature of wikipedia which all users can freely edit. Hence the power of citations is needed.

Thirdly, if we were to describe characters of a person, this is something that is very subjective--different sources will paint a subject in a different manner, as my citations have shown. But again, the intro would have to briefly cover the contents of the article as an overview, and the lack of citations could again, lead to future edit wards which would occassionally be the case as in Dokdo, especially if one sided views are provided by one user and the other user will give his contradicting viewpoint. Unless if a person is very well known such as Barack Obama, a safety measure is to provide citations--after all, wikipedia encourages users to provide citations to potentially contentious points. I know, it can be quite ugly, but strong backing citations are advisable to be provided to reduce the possibilities of future edit wars. Of course, the sources have to conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Blogs and trivia websites are not accepted. As the main contributor, I have sourced out materials from books, many of which are titles that can be traced from Google books, local newspapers and publication releases from government websites. But reviewing some past featured articles, what Brian said is true--at least the majorty of the articles has no more than 10 citations in the lead section. Well,....

But yes, I admit that my prose is bad--I usually mix up English and American prose styles, combined with some colloquial elements which could have contributed to my style. Pardon me, but I tend to be lazy here and use more colloquial tone here in discussions. Anyway, thanks! I do need help. Mr Tan (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looking through figures such as Malaysian DPM Najib Tun Razak, who like Sultan Iskandar also has his fair share of critics over controversial acts. As mentioned earlier that the head paragraphing should not have too many citations, lacking which would only serve to encourage users to insert facts which are usually slanted towards one's opinion, as quoted:

"A deeply unpopular politician among Malaysians, Najib has been labeled by his critics and the Malaysian Opposition as one of Malaysia's most dishonest and dirtiest politician"

The paragraph is still there at the time of writing. Ive enclosed a recent revision: [5]. In the case of controversial characters, labelling people on controversial acts would certainly need a citations, no matter the amount--especially if it is subject to interpretations and contentions. I dont know, but if the FA or GA criteria is not to have too many citations, wouldnt a revert war may erupt? Mr Tan (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)