Talk:Abdul Hamid Bador

Abdul Hamid Bador was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 19, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Malaysia Low‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abdul Hamid Bador/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kohlrabi Pickle (talk · contribs) 02:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just to say that I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about the cleanup tag for excessive citations in the lead section, and a large number of red links. These were enough for an immediate fail, but I've edited them out, and I'll proceed with the review anyway. Just a reminder to be mindful. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Fail
(a) (prose)	The article is clearly written, with good spelling and grammar. I'm concerned about some of the expression. Specifically "deputy director (I) of the SB" and "PDRM". "SB" should be spelt out, and "PDRM" can be replaced with "Royal Malaysian Police". Also "DIG" should be spelt out. I'm not happy with the headings - breaking the article up into "Deputy Inspector-General" and "Inspector-General" does very little to explain the content within. Clearly the article follows the subject's journey throughout the 1MDB crisis and the Malaysian general election. Subject headings (whether this or otherwise) would be much more appropriate.	✗ Fail
(b) (MoS)	This was quite well done.	✓ Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	There is a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. However, there is an excessive number of references. More than 2 reliable sources are not necessary for relatively uncontroversial claims. Please fix this.	On hold
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Links are pretty much exclusively to news sites, and there are no exceptional claims requiring exceptional sources.	✓ Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research as far as I can see.	✓ Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No plagiarism or copyright violations as far as I can see.	✓ Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	I don't think it is. There is almost nothing about the subject of the article beyond his tenure as DIG and IG. Nothing about his background, even though some of the citations show that his father is a policeman and he was raised in police quarters (which is relevant). Even the coverage of his refusing to clock in to another department following his transfer is sparse, limited to one line, when it could have been expanded significantly. Unfortunately, this has to be a fail.	✗ Fail
(b) (focused)	The second half of the article reads like an essay; a point-by-point listing of things he did, without context or explanation as to their relevance. This is problematic.	✗ Fail

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The material is written factually, which is good. There are some criticisms that have been made of the subject that have not found their way into the article. For instance, accusations of playing politics and clashes with the media about misreporting. I don't think the article is complete without those having been considered seriously.	✗ Fail

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Content is stable.	✓ Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Good work finding even this image - can be difficult for living biographies.	✓ Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Just one photo, doesn't need a caption.	✓ Pass

Result

Result	Notes
✗ Fail	I was keen to put this on hold and let the editor make changes over the next 7 days, but the shortcomings are so extensive that it will take time to rectify, and I regrettably have to fail it at this point. I suggest that the advisor focus on expression, breadth of coverage and structuring the article appropriately. The more formal aspects are well done, though abbreviations should be expanded. With these rectified, the article does have the makings of a GA. All the best.

Discussion

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

IGP Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]