Jump to content

Talk:Abdul Hamid Bador

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
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

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (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]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (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.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (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).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [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

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. 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
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. 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
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. 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
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. 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
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Content is stable.  Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. 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

[edit]
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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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]

  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.