| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to Featured List Candidates soon and wanted to see how accessible it was to a non-subject expert. Also, the normal feedback (grammar and whatnot etc.) would be greatly welcome.
Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comments by Wehwalt
- Standard disclaimer that I have done very little work with lists and am unfamiliar with the criteria. Interesting reading though.
- I think you need to make it clearer that this is an award which is only given posthumously. That comes through at present only from criterion 1 in the list of factors. I suppose your mention of someone's lifetime in the lede is a hint, but only a hint as it could arguably mean a person who still lives. Mentions of the recipient's deeds in the past tense would help, mention of their survivors showing up for the award ceremony, that kind of thing:
- Done one, might add more
- "before being selected". Omit. Redundant.
- Done
- "Proposals for new recipients undergo a four-step process, whereas each step must receive approval." I'm not sure where the whereas is coming from. Given the heavy use of the word "proposal" around there, suggest "Nominees undergo a four-step process, and must be approved at each level." or something like that. Perhaps "recommendation" could sub for proposal once?
- Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Criteria 2,4,6 and 7 read oddly to me and perhaps should be rephrased. I looked at the underlying source and understand it's a translation. Consider whether some of the ones that are not, should be in the past tense.
- Tried rewording, added original text
- "A proposal is made by the general populace" It's not clear here whether you mean that collective action is required or you just mean any member of the public can nominate.
- Can't think of good wording for this, but it's essentially public acclaim at the first step
- "as represented by" This reads oddly to my ear, but I don't know enough about Indonesian affairs to suggest an alternative.
- Removed "as"
- Suggest putting a date on when the title was given its present name.
- Not in source, sadly
- "have originated" Odd-sounding. Possibly "came"?
- Tried rewording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Have any designations been revoked, or is there provision to do so?
- Haven't seen any which have been revoked. Article 36 of the law allows for the revocation of Medals and Stars, but I didn't see "Title" there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- The prose feels a bit stiff and perhaps edging towards being a little too formal.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I'll try and bug someone to see if they can copyedit. Thanks for looking! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)