Talk:Tio Tek Ho

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tio Tek Ho/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 20:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I will look at this. HaEr48 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Bahasa Indonesia: Kong Koan => this does not seem to be in Indonesian but rather, one of the Chinese language?
• Lead should contain a summary of the other sections (MOS:INTRO). IMO, this means it should briefly describe events of his mayoralty.
• Rather than the minus sign (-) use the en dash (–) to mark ranges like (1786 - 1855), and em dash (or spaced en dash) to mark sentence breaks like "—like him—". See MOS:DASH
• Born in 1858 ..., Majoor Tio Tek Ho was a third-generation...: Since he was not Majoor at birth, this sentence should not use this title.
• " a Chinese officer": an officer of what? Can you expand it? For example, officer in the Dutch East Indies bureaucracy?
  • Still no sufficient explanation of the officer hierarchy.
• As pointed out by Mona Lohanda: briefly introduce who Lohanda is, e.g "historian Mona Lohanda"
• The flow of "Mayoralty" section's first paragraph is a little abrupt. Please add context, e.g. establish by what process he got nominated as majoor, and if possible Tio's own background (for example, what was his reason for notability before this). Also, most readers are unfamiliar with the titles Majoor and the Chinese Council, what their authorities were, etc. so they need introductions
• This tension was managed by one of the progressive leaders: not clear what "managed" means here. Do you mean to say that Phoa attempted to resolve this tension?
• He was Majoor for 11 years, did anything important happen other than conflict with the young Chinese party and the THHK? For example, he was considered " conservative traditionalist", was this on account of some policies or decisions that he made?
  • Still no explanation.

-- HaEr48 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello HaEr48, thanks for reviewing my article. I'll work on it this week and revert to you. Thanks FKSuprapto (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@FKSuprapto: As you make your changes, please don't forget to update the bullet points above to summarize what you did for each item. HaEr48 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@FKSuprapto: Another reminder. HaEr48 (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

HaEr48, FKSuprapto made a number of edits to the article back on February 12 and 14, and hasn't edited Wikipedia since, so they wouldn't have seen your request to update the bullet points. Perhaps you can see whether these edits addressed the problems you raised and where the article stands now with regard to the GA criteria? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Many of the points I raised above were not addressed (see those in blue), and the new texts added in response do not seem polished, with unencyclopedic word choice such as when the officers "cowered" to the Majoor's demand, "a sumptuous testimony", "land acquisition saga", "Tio was installed in office". Given that it stil hasn't achieved the criteria and the author is inactive/not responsive, I'm going to fail this nomination. I suggest the author looks at points above, polish the grammar and the choice of words, before renominating again (preferably when you have time to respond promptly to reviews). HaEr48 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)