Talk:Kaharuddin Nasution/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll take this, give me 7 days to complete the review. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this review. Are you still able to complete it, Goldsztajn, or does it need to go back in the queue? Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, apologies for my long delay, I'll get to it this weekend. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article would do well with a thorough copy-edit particularly focussed on grammar, I would suggest placing a request at the Guild of Copy Editors. However, one section in particular is in need of deeper work (see below).
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is too short, it should be a complete summary of the article and needs to be expanded.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Small correction required in the Bibliography: the text "DPRD Riau dari Masa ke Masa" lists the author as "Tim Penyusun", but this is Indonesian for "editorial team". The actual names of the authors need to be included here.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig turns up no major concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	My main concern is that the section "Removal from office" is quite convoluted and seems to rely on a single source with a poor translation of an article from Riau Online. While this section does not really discuss the issue, I would also say this is possibly the most historically significant part of Nasution's career: his refusal to engage in the anti-communist mass killings of 1965–66. John Roosa's "Buried Histories: The Anticommunist Massacres of 1965–1966 in Indonesia" has specific discussion of Nasution and provides insight into what I understand was an almost unique refusal throughout the Indonesian military command to not order massacres of PKI members (or those accused of being communists). Small correction: "He also became the member of the People's Consultative Assembly from 15 September 1960 until his removal from office on 15 November 1966." Shouldn't this be the *Provisional* People's Consultative Assembly (MPRS)? I think it would be more appropriate to state he was "appointed" to the MPRS in 1960. The source linked in the article states on page 1175 that he was a member until 1972: "8. Th . 1960–1972 Anggota MPRS." (Later in the article, the text notes: "After he was ousted from the governor's office, Nasution still retained his office as the member of the People's Consultative Assembly.")
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The fourth and fifth paragraphs in the "Governor of North Sumatra" section lack relevance to the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The link to the source of the image used in the infobox is broken (it is a Google Books link), the correct link needs to be included.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It's not necessary for GA status, but I would encourage adding alt text to the images to enhance accessibility.
	7. Overall assessment.	It was very good to find this article and Nasution is particularly deserving of the attention given here. His personal biography is frankly extraordinary: fighting with the Japanese against the US in the Pacific, then after the war against the Dutch for independence, an Indonesian nationalist and supporter of Sukarno who makes an uneasy but mostly successful transition to the Orde Baru. Unfortunately, given the shortcomings discussed above I do not feel the article has reached GA status. There's a number of issues which can be dealt with relatively simply, but the larger ones need deeper sourcing. My overall feeling is that the article does not move beyond being simply descriptive (he did this, then he did this etc); it could do well to draw on sources which give analytical insight into his life (in particular the lack of reference to John Roosa's "Buried Histories" stands out). Kind regards and my apologies for the length of time in completing the review. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Nice review, thank you. Next time try to decide if the article is instead partially compliant or only marginally non-compliant and could pass after improvements are made. And please wait for the editor to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jeromi Mikhael, I made the decision to fail because I felt the need to deal with the deeper problems in the article required a more thorough-going edit (ie I didn't feel this was *partially* or *marginally* non-compliant). I'm familiar with the process you've highlighted and have (happily!) engaged with other editors to do that in some of my previous GAN reviews; but, to reiterate, I think the changes needed here were more substantial and strengthening the analysis, sourcing and grammar would be better done before a second nomination. Let me say again, I really welcome your work here, it's great to see deeper coverage of Indonesian-related subjects and please feel free to ping me if I can help elsewhere. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)