Talk:Soeprapto (prosecutor)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soeprapto (prosecutor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 17:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• "After transferring often, the early 1940s he had" in the early

 Done

• "head of the court for Native Indonesians there" rm there

 Done

• "Soeprapto went to directly" went directly

 Done

• "For fifteen years he worked at various Landraad, " not sure what this is meant to say, reword. maybe say "in various locations" or something like that if that's what is implied.

 Done

• "the landraad " Landraad

 Done

• "Although the nascent army was able to hold the peace during riots at the end of 1945, when the Dutch began a major assault on Java." Sentence fragment, needs fixing, plus you use the same ref twice at the end of the sentence, so one can be rm'd.

 Done

• "In 1950 Soeprapto" comma after 1950.

 Done

• "In January of 1951" rm of

 Done

• "In 1953 he" comma after 1953

 Done

• "then Minister without Folio," not sure what that means; perhaps add something to clarify?

 Done I wikilinked it.

• Any years on the marriages? I imagine not since they would have been added, but thought I'd ask.

Not in the summary that is online. It could theoretically be in the book, but finding said book would be a pain in the train (very few Indonesian books are reprinted, and initial print runs can be quite small; for example, large publishing houses like Gramedia may only print up 3,000 copies [www.webcitation.org/642MmP31v (indicated here)]

I'll put the article on hold for a week and pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• K, everything is done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

  Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability?

It looks like most of this page's citations are to his official website, which is not a third-party source. Tezero (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. It's the official website for a biography of the individual, cited as I don't have the biography at hand. Each page appears to be a summary of a chapter. And are you seriously suggesting that an attorney/prosecutor general of a country of over a hundred million people (in the 1950s, remember) is not notable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Notability has nothing to do with how "important" the subject is in the real world, only with the sources available. But if it really is a full-length biography from a third-party source, I suppose that's okay. Tezero (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• • This biography, written almost fifty years after he died...  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As for "Notability has nothing to do with how 'important'" an individual is... you've never heard of the presumption of notability (i.e. the presumption that an individual would have enough RSes about them to be worth an article) based on holding a certain position? The same reason why no article on a president or prime minister of a country would be deleted, or why a Nobel Laureate would survive an AFD no matter how bad the article was (outside of copyvios). An attorney/prosecutor general, if his holding of the position can be verified (say, on the official Prosecutor General's website, which I haven't used here as it's both a) not independent and b) mostly redundant to what other sources give), would certainly survive AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, if this is a GA, why haven't you used more of these supposed RSes, which to boot must give "significant coverage"? It leads me to believe they might not be out there. Tezero (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Wow, are we patronizing now, aren't we? Or have you not noticed that I'm already adding a bit more? If you think this isn't notable, AFD it. I'll laugh when it's closed as snow keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Snow keep is just what you said: the presumption that sufficient sources are available - but if it's a GA, it should have them rather than just relegating them to theory. That being said, it does look like you're pulling them together, which I hadn't seen at the time. Tezero (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
          • If you're worried that this is not up to GA standards (which, by the way, is not explicitly related to notability, hence my concern over your continued use of that word; if you're questioning the notability of the article, that means you're questioning whether it should even be here in the first place), then that is a different story. You could have said that from the beginning, instead of starting with the mistaken assumption that this is all cited to "his official website" and continuing from there. Can this be expanded? Yes, almost certainly. Is this FA class yet? Definitely not. Is this GA class? I think it meets most general needs, and thus is sufficient for GA. However, I recognize that not all people will agree, hence why I'm adding sources at 12:00 am instead of what I should be doing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
            • It's not that I didn't think it was up to GA standards, but that it was up to GA standards, and thus that there wouldn't be many more sources available. It seems I was not correct. Tezero (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
              • You're confusing me. First you thought it was not notable but up to GA standards, then you thought that it was notable but not up to GA standards? And you read "presumption of notability" to mean "lots and lots and lots of sources"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
                • I thought it was not notable because it was a GA yet didn't have much in the way of secondary source coverage; notability is not a requisite for GA status - but it's telling when even with the research necessary for GA, the article hasn't demonstrated its notability. Now I think the article has, and I still think it fits the GA criteria. And "presumption of notability" means that sources are probably available but they have not been located at the moment. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that. Tezero (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • Missing a couple words "yet I thought it didn't have much in the way of secondary source coverage". The website you took for his official one was a summary of a 371 page book on the subject (and context of his leadership). That I did not have access to the book was made explicit during the GA review (transcluded above); I still have not found a copy. In half an hour I've already added four references, although admittedly three are to cite which streets were named after him. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)