Talk:Roman Tmetuchl/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nosebagbear (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm looking forward to reviewing your GAN. Full disclosure - this is my first GA review, so it may take me longer than some experienced reviewers, so I hope you'll be forgiving!

I'm still pending my hunt for the source to help you on that, which has been proving significantly slower than desired, but there are also the additional points below just raised by Goldsztajn which would need answering Nosebagbear (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2019 (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.	Clear/Concise Clear Minor Trim - Not sure we need to know they advised refurbishment of the plant (in the business section) - actions like that seem fairly mundane to anyone with a major business in varied property.  Done Spelling/Grammar No issues identified
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS - Lead Relative depth - more detail on his business career might make sense Pronunication - definitely needs a pronunciation addition MOS - Layout I've tweaked the short description, otherwise seems to be fine MOS - Words to watch Some of his money and land - do we know how much was donated? Survived by - see WP:SURVIVEDBY - there's a few bits here, but a personal life section as distinct from death is probably a better approach. MOS - Fiction N/A MOS - Embedded Lists Currently N/A
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.	Potentially controversial statements are sourced with source attribution done in a standard accepted format
	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).	All statements that linked to a source that was accessible were checked and no conflicts were found. In a couple of these instances, not all the information was included in the source, but there was a second reference provided in each of these cases. There were a number of sources that were not accessible online (I was able to check the JSTOR one). I verified each of these sources did at least exist, and the titles sound on-point for providing the content in question.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research detected in the course of going over statements. 2/3 primary source usages, however they fell within the acceptable remit of primary sources laid out in WP:OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig registers at 20%, but that is purely due to a sourced quote
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Generally fine - the main aspects of his life all seem covered, and in a good amount of depth. A few clarifications that should be answered (crossovers between clarity & information issues) How did he testify for the soldiers in the war crimes trials (for/against etc)? Which other committee was the independence motion referred to? Do we know why he didn't press charges for the assassination attempt?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	While I would probably divide both business and the first part of Congress of Micronesia, I don't believe that the current length falls outside the levels seen in other equivalent GAs. On both that grounds, and on a more general article focus level, I believe this requirement is satisfied.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	While the article is fairly positive towards Roman, that is generally in line with the content that I've been able to read. Assuming that is also the case for the other sourcing, then I feel it has been presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No indication of either an edit war or pending unresolved editorial decisions
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.	Primary (currently only) photo is public domain and looks justified as such
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The infobox photo is obviously fine and has no need for an additional caption. What are your thoughts on adding a photo of his memorial runway?  Done
	7. Overall assessment.	Currently "On Hold"

• Comment: I've tweaked some of the article and added some content from a newspaper obituary. I no longer have access to the print version of Roman Tmetuchl: A Palauan Visionary, so I'm not sure if I can do some of the requested edits. I also don't know that much about the Palauan language, so I don't think I can add pronunciation for his last name. ^Falling_Gravity 08:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  @FallingGravity: - I've marked a couple of aspects as done. If you don't mind your reviewer participating a bit, I'll be down near the British Library in the near future. I could see if I can get access to a copy for that? I could also see if Buaidh, who was a former former of the Palau project, might be able to help with the pronunciation. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I've some concerns about the article's over-reliance on Ron Shuster's biography (the author is extremely sympathetic to his subject). A couple of points which would be worthwhile adding and are notably absent:

1. War activities: Temetchul's chapter in Saipan: Oral Histories of the Pacific War goes into detail about his role in the Kempeitai - which the article completely elides. By his own account he worked for a war criminal, was engaged in counter-intelligence work, was witness to war crimes against US POWs and Palau civilians, was privy to Japanese discussions of mass killings and gave evidence in war crimes trials in Guam after WW2.

2. Politics: From the 1970s Tmetuchl was at the centre of politics, yet the article goes from point to point in this period without giving much of an over-view. For example some very signficanct issues: how and why does he evolve from supporting Palau being part of the Micronesia Federation in the early-mid 1970s to supporting separatism in the late 1970s and beyond? Shuster's chapter on Tmetchul in Leadership in the Pacific Islands goes someway to explaining this, essentially saying he read which way the wind was blowing and adapted to local popular opinion. His visit to the US in early 1977 is also very important since this is the point at which the US gives the green light for Palau separatism. It would also be worth mentioning Tmetchul's role in the anti-nuclear debates on Palau's constitution and its effect on relations with the US (covered in Palau: Constitution for sale). His power reaches its zenith in the late 1970s and then comes asunder in the Palau Constitutional Convention in early 1979 and never recovers from this (Embattled Island: Palau's Struggle for Independence p. 29). In the 1980s his position is in the camp which opposed attempts to undermine the anti-nuclear provisions and also was against earlier versions of the Compact with the US (see The Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement After Mururoa).

3. Business: WP:UNDUE concerns here, far too chronological and detailed, and far too dependent on Shuster's biography. By the end of his life Tmetchul would have been one of the richest people in Palau (if not *the* richest), which during the 1980s was notoriously corrupt. (See Embattled Island: Palau's Struggle for Independence p. 28 on his wealth).

4. Legacy: This should be more overt. Tmetuchl was the most prominent politican of Palau in the latter half of the 20th Century and was the leading politician responsible for ensuring US plans for Palau were not as the Johnson and Nixon administrations had planned (eg as part of a Micronesian Federation) (see Politics and Democracy in Microstates p.174).

--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Status query

Nosebagbear, FallingGravity, where does this review stand? It's been open for over four months, and there haven't been any edits to the article since September. The most recent posts here were the one a month ago by Goldsztajn and the subsequent alterations to the review template later that day by Nosebagbear. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, @BlueMoonset:, I should have handled this earlier. I've not been able to find a copy of the primary book to help out the editor, and along with Goldstajn's, there's an appreciable number of outstanding issues (including a couple of significant non-content based ones. Notwithstanding a response from FallingGravity or advice from a more experienced reviewer, I will need to close it as unsucessful in a few days. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy at the moment, though maybe I'll work on the issues in the future. I wouldn't mind waiting to reopen the review process until that time. ^Falling_Gravity 03:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: Okay, I'll mark this as failed, for now. If you or the resource exchange can lay their hands on the right sourcing at some point, I still believe there to only be a few hours of work needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)