Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fakih Usman/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Fakih Usman edit

Featured article candidates/Fakih Usman/archive1

Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is ready. Fakih is, to put it lightly, pretty much forgotten in most histories of Indonesia that I've read. He gets more mention as the chairman of Muhammadiyah - a position he held for less than a week before his death. Though the article is somewhat short, I believe it is comprehensive. It is easily the best English-language biography of this subject available. This received a PR from Wehwalt, Sarastro1, and User:SchroCat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is good. Hanamanteo (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I commented at length at the PR, where my minor concerns were addressed. I think this meets the criteria comfortably, and matches Crisco's usual high standards. The prose is good, and I think the context is set very nicely. I cannot comment on how comprehensive or otherwise it is, nor on the sourcing, but there is nothing obviously missing. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments at the PR (and, of course, the support)! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Why does KH come after Kutoyo? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I really should type more slowly (fixed). Thanks for the source review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim Usual high standards, just a couple of comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masyumi and National Revolution—I'm not clear why the final words are capitalised

Have gone with capitals as this is an abbreviated proper name (Indonesian National Revolution) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The British initially focused on Java and Sumatra, hoping to avoid armed confrontations with the Republican forces—Earlier in this para, you have said the republicans were in Jakarta, which is in Java. As written, this sentence is unclear.

Have reworded to be less ambiguous — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Quadell

Image check: All images are legitimately in the public domain, and all required information is present. Usage and captions are appropriate.
Links: Jakarta is linked at the 2nd and 3rd mention, but should be linked only at the first. Ulama is linked twice, but that could be appropriate: it's linked in non-adjacent sections, and it's an unfamiliar term for many readers that is important in the article. Sukarno is linked twice, and that's less useful. I detect no other linking issues.

Done, removed all extra links (as "ulama" is explained in-text, I don't think the second link has much value). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some minor wording changes. I think they improve the prose, but if you disagree, feel free to revert.
I think the sentence beginning "During a leadership course..." would be clearer if it were broken up, but honestly I'm not sure of the best way to do this.

Have tried. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note [a] seems to have a typo when it ends a sentence with "...and thus sought to purify the religion from."

Reworded (along with below) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also in note [a], it's pretty clear that "pious communities" rejected the Muhammadiyah for promoting individual interpretation of the Qur'an, and not for opposing syncretism (which they would presumably agree with). But it's not clear whether "officials" and "Islamic teachers in the countrysides" opposed Muhammadiyah for being too liberal (for promoting individual interpretation) or too conservative (for denouncing syncretism), or some of both. Do you see what I mean? The note seems to say that the Muhammadiyah were modernist in one way, and then it says they were still conservative in a different way... and then it says "as such" they were opposed by three different groups. I just can't tell if all three groups thought them too modernist, or if some thought them too strict.

Actually, some pious communities may have also taken issue with the attempt to eliminate the syncretism. The Sultan of Yogyakarta, for instance, is considered an Islamic leader by many Javanese despite the sultanate's Hindu influences. You can see how Ricklefs puts it here, especially "pious Javanese had believed for centuries to be the true Islam" (I've also added links to kejawen and kebatinan which give more details). It is a fairly complex issue which should (don't think it is) be more detailed at the Muhammadiyah article. Hopefully the removal of the word "modernist" here will avoid more confusion, and I've reworded slightly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's quite a confusing set of issues, but that's religion for you. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note [b] begins with a capital and ends with a period as if it were a sentence, but it's worded as a dependent clause. I would simply change "having" to "had".

Agree, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it correct to say "during Ramadhan of 1961"? I don't know a lot about standards for Islamic calendar representation on Wikipedia, but it seems like an odd wording to me. If you mean the month, Ramadan is a part of the Islamic calendar, but 1961 is a Western year representation. (Wouldn't it be either Ramadan of 1380 AH, or February/March of 1961?) If you mean the religious observational period, wouldn't it be "Ramadham in 1961"? I honestly don't know what the standard is here.

That is a very good question. The source (based on my memory, Google won't let me see the page now) uses the Western year and Ramadan, though I think it does mention the Hijri year. I have tried rephrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I am leaning toward supporting. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I hope I have addressed your questions to your satisfaction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed, and this article fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my peer review of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.