- The following discussion 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: promoted by —Bruce1eetalk 15:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Malayisation edit
- ... that Malayisation has occurred in five Southeast Asian countries?
- Reviewed: Not necessary per current DYK nomination.
Created/expanded by Orhanghazi (talk). Nominated by Annas86 (talk) at 09:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Long enough, just about made the nom on the last possible day. References are either wikilinked or verifiable with ISBNs. Hook is sourced and interesting. Just a few issues/questions: "coastal-trading community with a fluid cultural identity" seems like an opinion, and thus needs the caveat who claims so; "Early History" first 2 paras need citation clarification there; "Later Malay sultanates" end of first para and last para/list needs the same; Malaysia needs on the end of list and third para; and end of Indonesia. most are simple oversights, i imagine, but the first needs some sorting. Otherwise remarkably well done NEW article (a barnstar is in order?) and could be GA or more soon.Lihaas (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- already added citations for above-mentioned para. (سڠ ڤڠليڤور لارا (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
Been referenced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
New enough and long enough at time of nomination. Article is fully supported by references. Hooked fact is neutral enough, interesting enough, supported by sources in the article.
that sources are not plagiarised and actually support text. Article is neutral enough. (I suspect nationalists in one camp or another might not like.) I can see what the previous reviewer means regarding how some of this sounds like opinion. It reads to me like what Wikipedia would be written like if Masters and Doctoral students were trying to write but minus the original research and synth aspects. That's what I'm attributing the wording issues to more than opinion pushing. Example: "The strength of nationalist sentiments and the destruction of the sultanates ushered in a prolonged period of Malay political acquiescence, significantly reducing the momentum of Malayisation process in Indonesia." would probably be simplified to "Nationalist sentiment and the end of the sultanates led to a period of calm amongst the Malaysians that meant similar cultural identity sharing did not occur in Indonesia." --LauraHale (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)