Talk:Iskandar of Johor/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A few comments:

   • The title of the article breaches Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), which states: "Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation." Since there is no dismabiguation, the article should be moved to Iskandar of Johor.
   • The WP:LEAD does not summarize the article. It deals with very specific some would even say trivial, attributes of the subject. The lead is supposed to summarize all aspects of the article, and should touch all sections (though not necessarily in equal amounts).
   • Normally, a grammar school is a type of secondary education.
   • Try to avoid using terms like "analysts have..."; instead, state it as a fact, or state which analysts have. It this is an undisputed claim, just state the the person in question in not covered in any of the biographies in question.

Done. [1]Mr Tan (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

1. • Be consequent on placing days before or after the month.
   • Quite a number of common nouns are capitalized. Only proper nouns should be capitalized.
   • There are a number of tense problems. I have fixed those I have found. In particular, events that have and are continuing to occur are in the wrong tense.
   • Endashes used for punctuation need spaces between them, while emdashes are unspaced.
   • Avoid wiesel words like "bizarre", "interestingly", "sensational". Present the facts, and let the reader determine if they are bizarre, interesting etc.
   • This sentence need a clean-up, perhaps splitting it into two: "In late 1992, two separate assault cases by the Sultan himself as well as his younger son, Tunku Abdul Majid Idris on hockey coaches culminated in the stripping of immunity of rulers from prosecution–which received considerable headlines in both the local and international news which was aptly dubbed as 'The Gomez Incident'."
   • This does not make sense: "... as well as a brush whereby he was convicted in January 1993,..."
   • Use ISO-codes (three-letter codes) for currencies, and link on first occation.
   • Avoid linking dates.
   • In general, many sentences are too long, and should be shorten by use of either semicolons or splitting in two. Sometimes, a semicolon could replace an em or endash.
   • As a rule of thumb, never use more than three emdashes per paragraph. (Okay, that is an FA criteria, but I will mention it anyway, since I might as well pick towards perfection).
   • This sentence needs rephrasing: "Shortly before to his election as the Yang-Di Pertuan Agong in 1983, a spate of reports alleging Sultan Iskandar's intention to launch a coup d'état by launching a state of emergency to overthrow the government circulated within political circles, which reached Mahathir himself."
   • This sentence is far too long: "Two months later, in June 1984, in his capacity as the Agong, caused a sensational incident when he publicly called upon the then-Deputy Prime Minister, Musa Hitam, to make a public apology in front of the entire congregation present at the National Mosque, over remarks which Musa made during the course of the 1983 constitutional crisis that he deemed as disrespectful."
   • Also this sentence is too long and not understandable: "However, observers suggested a remarkably warm relationship between then-Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad with the Agong, both of whom shared common resentment against the chief justice, Sultan Iskandar, convicted of homicide and sentenced to six months imprisonment prior to his Kingship in 1977, among which Salleh Abas served as the public prosecutor hearing the case. As the public prosecutor, Salleh had appealed to the chief justice for handing down a heavier sentence for Tunku Iskandar, which naturally earned his wrath."
   • I have no idea what UMNO and DAP is. Spell out all abbreviations on first occurance.
   • I generally find there are too many complex words. Wikipedia articles should use a fairly simple prose, avoiding words such as 'pertaining'. In theory, aim for about a average native 14-year-old's English vocabulary (though the content described may in addition use technical terminology which can be explained and linked).
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   When sources are in all-caps, they should still be written in small-caps. Chosing to use all-caps is a typographic choice, such as font and size, and we are not required to cite sources in the fond as they are printed in either.

Ive done it--but Im not sure if Ive intepreted you correctly. Hmm...I didnt did exactly as with the prescribed citation style guidelines, but to format it to the presecribed style would take a lot of time, which I dont. That is however, only a guideline and not a policy. Nevertheless, pls help me out if my edits---which I did to standardise the reference section---if I didnt get you correctly for this.Mr Tan (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I am concerned that this article is overfocused on controversies. The section covers about half the article. In particular, there is no mention of any political stances that he has taken that counterbalance the critisism. I do not quite understand how involved in politics he is, but placing all politicial issues he has been invovled in under controversy seems somewhat POV. I would like an explanation for why not more foucs has been layed on other aspects, before I determine whether the article meets the GA criteria. I understand that matter like conviction of manslaughter are important to cover, but in the whole, the article seems unbalanced. That being said, the prose seems balanced.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Due to accessibility reasons (for instance people with a slow, modem connection or reduced sight), avoid forcing image sizes, so that they can be manually overridden by the preferences.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold. First, the aricle shold be moved, the lead completely rewritten, the style comments addressed and an excplanation for the overfocus on controversy. Do not hesitate if there are any questions or comments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

One point: How is the lead to be rewritten? For one, this article involves a very controversial person and removal of references can potentially lead to edit wars. I am not aqgainst a rewrite--though Im not sure how, but the removal of certain citations could lead to edit wars. This includes the issue of titles and full names--again, very often people--especially from the western world may not understand Islamic and Malay terms very well. This includes part of his title "Almuktawakil Alallah", which is not part of his legal name--but very often, it is mistaken as part of it.

I will also touch up on the other points--but considerations to be given to a reqrite of the lead section, perhaps if you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:When_to_cite#Citations_in_leads and Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations. Even in the case of Kuala Lumpur, a GA article, there are also quite a lot of leads, given that descriptions and statistics are subjected to debate and challenges if credible sources are not provided. What I suggest is that if one might be unfamiliar with the topic and not know the contents of the citation, you can post it here, so that I can review whether it is found in the cited sources--for reasons of accountability and credibility. Please also note any proposals for major removal of contents--there will always be space for discussion. But yup, I have my fallbacks. If it is otherwise about gramatical and prose problems in the lead, then by all means go ahead and render your help. Mr Tan (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of the large section placed to the controversy, much publicity has been given to his controversial acts throughout his adult life. The content citations pertaining to his controversies owes much to articles in Malaysian newspapers. Nevertheless, as a ceremonial monarch, attention is usually given to politicians and not the monarchs in the affairs of the nation or the state. Perhaps you can just check out New Straits Times or The Star's online headlines. To otherwise source out information pertaining to his past state contributions and prominent activities has been relatively sparse--my initial expansions comes from the controversy section rather than his neutral aspects of his life. But by and large, I have already used up almost all of whatever available net sources on Sultan Iskandar to piece this article together--the article is technically the explanation.

Take a quick google book search: [2] (Ignore "Sultan Iskandar Muda"--there are several Muslim rulers who share the same name and title, note those with Johor) Most sources point to either a general biography or his controversial past--there are not very many sources which point to his political roles, save for his tenure as Agong. Again, even then, many of them are of questionable repute in the eyes of Malaysians--that is why a large controversy section is dedicated. In the official state biography, [3], elements pertaibning to the Sultan's controversial past are excluded--surf the portal, and questionable elements are never mentioned. These questionale elements constitute the controversy. If you use a yahoo or google search, [4], controversial elements would be rather sparse as newspapers would generally run events of recent and concurrent affairs. Since most these events happen in the past (10+ years), articles on it are hard to find. Take it from me: Malaysians--particularly Malays are particularly sensitive to raising critical and controversial things about the monarchs and hence could also account for the sparcity of these articles. Raja Petra Kamaruddin, editor of Malaysia Today, had what to say about this: [5]; [6]; [ http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/bnm/20090210/tts-perak-gathering-bm-993ba14.html]; [7]

On the significance of his controversy, it would be very hard as a person for me to describe in detail. Nevertheless, if you might want to check the significance of Sultan Iskandar's controversies to his name, perhaps members from Category:WikiProject Malaysia members may help as well? (I recommend thatUser:Earth can help in this--he is a columnist for the Malaysian insider, a online newspaper.) This I understand, are issues which Malaysians only generally understand its weight. One man's explanation is very subjective to interpretations, and I would recommend that further referals might be helfpul if you might be concerned with the controversy.

But yes, aspects of life concerning the non-controversial parts are rather sparse--that is why I can only expand to a limited extent, given the scarcity of resources. Take for instance, go and find google books--are there any sources pertaining to his teenage years? If I had I would have galdly made my inputs. But again, all inputs have to be sourced according to the given guidelines.Mr Tan (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, while the article title matches with those of the naming conventions, moving "Sultan Iskandar of Johor" alone would break the pattern of naming in Category:Monarchs of Malaysia as most articles begin with "Sultan" here. Unless a mass move is initiated, there could be chances whereby unwitting users may revert back to the old name--this is possible especially if they are not well informed and would generally infer from what they see at first sight. Also take a look at the fellow nominee Emperor Xuanzong of Tang--shouldnt we re-move it to Xuanzong of tang, if that is the case--Emperor is just a title as with Sultan and not a name? Mr Tan (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I might rephrase this clearer, with regards to the "controversy" question. The controversies section is the main portion which generates the most impact on the Sultan's impression in the Malaysian public circles. Given the publicity given to each count of controversial incident, naturally it is published in the press. As a ceremonial monrach, contributions done are usually very minimal--the Sultan in this case, often gets involves in things which were had disporoval and approval in quarters of the society and hence the controversy. Nevertheless, many of these events are back ten years or more and the New Straits Times and The Star do not provide online archives of past articles as the International Herald tribune do. Other than books in the library or google books, it would be very difficult to assess and counter-verify the impract of the controversy, if you might question his importance. But if you are still in doubt, I would sincerely recommend that you may refer to members of Wikiproject Malaysia who may also help to clarify these doubts in mind. To perhaps get an understanding of the gist of the weight of his controversy, one may read at [8], but to truly understand the importance and weight that Iskandar's controversy prolonged exposure to local Malaysian affairs or extensive research into its lietrary materials is necessary. Mr Tan (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Did most of the suggested edits from what I see. As for the lead section, I have copyedited and included further citations to explain non-English foreign terms wherever necessary. If you may have more suggestions, feel free to contribute, though if you really still think the lead needs a rewrite, you can propose another version, and explain where is wrong. "No man is an island", and I would certainly need more inputs if this were to at least get a GA grade. Mr Tan (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I have been somewhat busy in real life. I am sorry if I have made myself somewhat unclear about the lead: there is no style or referencing problems with it, but it is the scope. All information contained in the lead must be repeated in the main body. The lead is simply a summary of the most important information in the main text. At minimum, the lead must at least touch all sections. For instance, his personality and many names are not discussed in the main body of the article (please correctly me if I have overseen it). Also all the genealogy is only mentioned in the lead. I might suggest a new section for the name and genealogy. To summarize: while the current lead is an excellent introduction, it fails to summarize the article. I hope this makes my concerns with the lead more clear.

Concerning the article name, if you are concerned about the articles being moved back and forth, you can apply for the article to be move-protected (though normally this would have to be an occurring problem). I notice that most of the current Malay monarchs have Sultan prefixes on them, but some (maybe about quarter of the articles?) do not. Just because other articles are misnamed, does not mean this one should also be. I would therefore support a mass-move of all the Malay monarchs. My argument is simply that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) leaves no rooms for any ambiguity of the naming convention for monarchs. To take a 'close to home' example for myself, all Norwegian monarchs are located at Harald V of Norway, not King Harald V of Norway. Of course, when linking to him in an article, I always use [[Harald V of Norway|King Harald V]]. We cannot have one rule for Asian monarchs and one for European monarchs. As an example, just because someone has a PhD, does not mean that the article title should have 'Dr.', even if the person may often be reffered as this; and again, we do not have one rule for Asian and one for European PhD-academics.

As for the controversy, I am convinced. I also think my subconsciousness was working a little at it the last day or two. If "half" the sources talk about it, and he has not done much more than be controversial, then I guess it is only fair to include. The article is getting along good. Please tell me when you feel you have implemented all the style changes and have redone the lead, and I can look it over. There should be no problems getting this article to GA. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction: The Sultan has only one name--"Mahmud Iskandar". As in many Islamic countries, he a long title which is mistaken for his name--hence I find the need to provide numerous footnote explanations and citations to explain the situation.

Namewise, I seriouslu think that it should constitute the main part of the lead section. While the title "Sultan" is known to a fair number of westerners, local Malay titles such as "Tunku" are not well understood, and as from what I see in the numerous western authors which I have read parts for their books. Take Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia's 1st Prime Minister for instance. I have hardly came across which states a source saying that "Prince Abdul Rahman" or just "Abdul Rahman"--there is a tendency for many authors, who might not understand Malay customs well to misconstrue titles which were often used as part of their name. Try google books for example: [9]; [10]; [11]. In the context of the Sultan Iskandar, we must note that he was not born to be a Sultan; he was born as a prince. In the context of relevance, there are certainly events which will make mention of his life before 1981--he was certainly known as "Tunku Iskandar". If you might browse back the history of articles on other Monarchs in Malaysia, there certainly could be confusion. Hence in the interest of the article's consistency and content details relevance I find it rather necessary to include in the lead. To me, a vital point like this should be firmly established in the lead in order to dispell any possibilities of deviation into a dispute of using "Sultan Iskandar" into events before 1981, which Iskandar was certainly not Sultan back then. You may want to take a look at MOS:LEAD on my argument basis.

Speaking about addressing all sections of the article in the lead, the article shoudl address the most important points in the article--in the case of a biography, what is the person is most noted for--in the case of Iskandar it was his past controversial actions, given that a high percentage of any press publications were dedicated to this negative portion of his past. Take Barack Obama for example. Its three paragraph lead section address the most important points that Obama was noted for throughout his career, given that he is by nature a politician. There is no mention of his early life and current personal life, which are generally considered less important as compared to his political career. After all, it is not the early life and personal life that Obama gained his fame and reputation. It is the impract of his political career that gave notability and hence its impact. You may take a look at the MOS:LEAD and Wikipedia:Accessibility to consider these points. Nevertheless, if you are still feel that the lead strongly needs more edits in this case, perhaps you can give a proposed version of the rewritten lead to be pasted here?

Concerning the mass move of articles which you propose, a semi-protection could be okay but nevertheless this is only a temporary measure and for any permanent and effective moves, I think it will not work out in the long run. While I do support your motion, I must raise though, that there are many wikipedians that might not be very familiar with its rules. If a move were to be initiated and see a long term effect, I would strongly recommend that a section specially dedicated and explaining the reasons of the move be pasted in each article's talk page to explain its rationale. On hindsight, while not all editors may review the talk page all the time, at least users will understand the rationale behind the move--I hope that you understand that assuming presumptions would not work well in any place in society--strong reasons must always be cited if any major edits were to be initiated.

If you still have any concerns which might need to be addressed, please do not hesitate to raise them if necessary. Your inputs are certainly appreciated. Thank you! Mr Tan (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To be a little clearer on the issue of name, I also feel that it is important that the paragraph be included in the lead section, especially for people with multiple first and middle names, of which various sources set his names by addressing him "Sultan Mahmood", "Sultan Mahmud Iskandar" and "Sultan Iskandar". Nevertheless, while the Sultan prefers the convention to be addressed by the name "Iskandar", western sources have the tendency to address him also by the first name--especially in older sources. Naturally, other editors may experience confusion over this matter and future contributions would not be consistent--meaning some parts of the article would have "Mahmood Iskandar", "Iskandar" or "Mahmud"--naturally this would not go in line with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency_within_articles. Especially for less notable people like the Sultan, I think a paragraph should be dedicated to the lead section to explain this convention in order to set a firm precedence regarding his name. Putting it into the sections, especially in a large article like this, would serve to decrease the importance to the name but also less users will notice the paragraph and we may have these issues popping up in the future. You may take a look at an older version of this article (before January 2009) and analyse these trends: Example [12].

I will be also editing on the lead section--but I ask that you give me a little time. If you think that some more work may be needed to get a GA, please do not hesitate to let me know, and I will be happy to work things out. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe tell you what: You may take a look at Kenta Kobayashi, P. G. T. Beauregard, Dom Pachino and Mwai Kibaki on the issue of setting precedents in the status of names (dropped or rarely used) at the lead section of the article. The problem is, there are no sources as yet which explicitely stated that he had dropped his first name "Mahmud", yet at the same time it is no longer commonly used, and as a result there are misinterpretations that he had dropped his first name. In such a dubious situation, incosistencies in his name-address will emerge with time as other editors have different viewpoints and contribute--especially if no precedent is set. To give this an interesting twist, his daughter, Tunku Azizah had stated in a 2006 interview by addressing her father "Sultan Mahmud Iskandar" (Interview [13]). Mr Tan (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what you are saying. I am uncertain about the name issue; however there seems to be much to be said about the name, and I would encourage a section, though not necessarily a long one, about the name, and why he has so many, in the main body. Of course, stating the several possible names he could refer to in the lead is okay. Two reflections from you comments (not disagreeing, just thinking aloud): My experience is that pages are permanently move-protected (unlike semi-protection for editing, which is typically temporary). Concerning the lead: for instance, I would say that stating the persons date of birth is mentioning the 'early life' section.

On the issue of page protection, wikipedia is in the constsnt state of dynamic evolution; new policies and guidelines are constantly implemented--but a select few could be removed if a new batch of users find it no longer relevant, they could always vote it out. These guidelines and policies are meant to suit the conditions of wikipedia during a specific period--take wikipedia five years back. Dont you think that it was smaller, and was not as popular as now--the breadth of ideological disparities between users would be lower than that as is now. Take Liancourt Rocks for example. Repeated consensus has resulted in the move between "Dokdo" and "Liancourt Rocks"--it is just a matter whether it could get a majorty vote and then the move is made. Okay, if you may want something like semi-protected for Iskandar as with Barack Obama I would not be totally disagreeable, but provided that you may state clear and explicit reasons in the talk page to explain the move's rationale and why it needs the protection. Maybe you can take a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on more about guideline/policy deletion and implementations.

There is nothing much to state about Iskandar's name; he was not Ho Chi Minh or Miss Cleo who had ever used formal aliases in his life--even these articles do not have a special section dedicated to the various names that they use. You are mistaken that he has numerous names. Again, Sultan Iskandar's name is "Mahmud Iskandar Al-Haj", while the "Ismail Al Khalidi" is his father's name (Sultan Ismail), with ibni denoting "son of" in most Islamic cultures. Again, because that the press had used to address him "Tunku Mahmood" in the past and did not use "Iskandar" at the present, the 2nd lead paragraph is meant to state the varying ways that the press had used to mention him. Just as the four examples of the people with "rarely used names" which I have given, the important factor is to set a precedent to inform readers that he is only known as "iskandar" and not "Mahmud Iskandar" or "Mahmud". Again, to leave out this paragraph, users would no doubt question whether "Mahmud Iskandar" should be used to address him in the rest of the article? Inconsistencies will invariably emerge with time as different new editors make their contributions. To correct you, the second paragraph is not about stating his "several names" that he had, but rather to set a precedent and explaining Media's-both local and western ones-changing attitudes in their mode of address to the Sultan, which I believe has to stem from his personal sentiment that he requested to be addressed as "iskandar" at some point of time rather that "Mahmud Iskandar" or "Mahmud", which was commonly seen during his younger days. Take a look at Kenta Kobayashi again; the wrestler was dropped his "Kobayashi" in the media reports but not in his real name--the lead section did make mention of this issue in order to set a clear precedent to how readers and editors should address him as the read through the article. You wont find the surname "Kobayashi" anywehere else except in the lead. Similarly, this case also applies for the Sultan. If you have any further concerns in other areas of the articles, please do not hesitate to raise it--I know, its very tiring. If you think it is ready for a final review or otherwise, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry for not responding sooner. I have been very busy in real life, and the few spare moments I have had on Wikipedia have been devoured by multiple GA reviews, both my own and other's nominations. Concerning the names, I will not let it stand in the way of it passing GA, but I would encourage you to sacrifice some space in the article to explain it somewhat. While the English Wikipedia is not geographical, but lingual (and this article will be read by many Malaysians), many readers will be unfamiliar with Islamic titles. While I now fully understand why he is addressed by part of his name, it might be of some help to Western readers to explain it somewhat more detailed in the prose. In particular, ibni is not a word that an English speaker can be expected to understand. I am also somewhat confused to if we agree about the page move or not; you stated an agreement at one time, and any person interested in this article will have been following this debate, and should have made comments about the article title if they had a strong opinion. As for other Malaysian monarchs, I will let other people deal with their naming. I will now move the article, and paste a specific rationale directly on the talk page, quoting the rationale. Otherwise, the article now abides by the GA criteria, and I shall pass it. Congratulations, and thank you for your patience and good work :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes from your recommendations, but for the moment I have yet to find an immediate solution whereby I can smoothly accomodate the "ibni" elaborations into a prose. Nevertheless, I have included an explanatory footnote--but if any editors or myself may find a suitable way to integrate it into the prose, I think it would be better and I will do so, if it does not compromise article fluency. But note that in Malay names, "something bin something" forms an integral part of a Muslim person's name in Malaysia--this also includes his father's name. Issues pertaining to his titles I have enclosed footnoted explanations to help General readers to identify and differentiate between the ruler's name and titles. Titles, which are only used in honorary capacity and does not constitute part of a name, I thought that footnote explanation would be more appropriate to address western (General) readers on the literal meaning of the titles--it is different from a person whose style of address that has variations throughout the years (Mahmud Iskandar, Mahmud, Iskandar--minus the Sultan) which has been used differently by the media and press.

Hence I felt the strong imperative need to enclose an explanatory prose in the lead in order to set the precedent on how Iskandar should be addressed, especially with a person with a record of alternating modes of addresses "Sultan Mahmud Iskandar", "Sultan Mahmud", "Sultan Iskandar". Do note that I cited four articles which also set similar naming precedents for interests in consistency (Kenta Kobayashi). To clear the confusion, notice the "Al-Haj" in his name. The "Al-Haj" has been never used by the press as a stand-alone name as in "Sultan/Tunku Al-Haj"--hence this is why I dedicated a special second lead paragraph to explain the press and media's varying style of addressing him. And it is exactly from the media and press which our sources and references come from.

But yup, thank you very much for the time and effort which you have contributed in helping to bring this article to GA. Pls do not hesitate do contribute further suggestions if you may deem necessary. Mr Tan (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)