Talk:Malaysia–Vietnam relations/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 10:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Commentary
Firstly, thank you for your edits to this article on Wikipedia,. This article certainly contains some useful information but is a little scattershot in its approach to portraying it. Some issues include: I think this structure will help better structure the information contained within this article, and relates to the 'readability' criteria of the GA review. Some other very general comments include:
 * There doesn't seem to be an explicit statement at the top of the article that states what the article is about. This is not necessary for GA promotion, but a statement such as "This article is about relations between the modern state of Malaysia and Vietnam" or something similar may help define this article's scope.
 * This article has an eclectic presentation of present and historical relationships between the two countries. I think that a good model for the structure that this article could have is the GA Croatia–Hungary relations, which divides the article into 'present' and 'historical'. In this article, I would split the article by sections:
 * Present:
 * Diplomatic ties
 * Embassy
 * Trade
 * Social Developments
 * Historical:
 * Cham vassals (15th-18th century)
 * Increasing trade (18th-20th centuries)
 * Relations with South Vietnam (1959–1975)
 * Vietnamese refugees (1975-2005)
 * "Malaysia-Vietnam relationships date back to the Middle Ages" should be changed either to "to the Ming Dynasty" or a year, as Middle Ages isn't relevant in Asia.
 * Done--I think I just quote something more neutral, "15th century" would be best rather than "Ming Dynasty" which points to China, which has no direct relevance to the article. Furthermore, quoting another country's history--ie: VN's Nguyen Dynasty would POV against Malaysia, and vice versa in this context. Mr Tan (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs in the history section could do with some fleshing out, in very brief form, explaining some of the major events or players that are mentioned in passing. For example: "Tonkinese soldiers had captured a Malaccan tributary mission en route to China and killing some while also simultaneously castrating and enslaving the remaining survivors" could be improved by something like "The modern-day Malaysian state consisted of at the time a number of small nation states, including the sultanate (?) of Malacca. Tonkinese soldiers dispatched by [country] which interepted and captured a tributary mission..."; and so on. A little context is needed in these paragraphs. This relates to the broadness criteria and applies throughout the subsections of the history section.
 * Please, go ahead and paraphrase or rephrase :) Mr Tan (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Some other things which may increase the breadth of this article include: mentioning the social, ethnic, religious and linguistic constituents of both countries, mentions of any common heritage (eg common pre-Ming dynasties or hegemons including China or Khmer regimes); and updating statistics to include those taken post-2010, to increase the relevance of the article.
 * Not all bilateral relations have it; I think it is entirely optional and would not be relevant if no meaningful analysis can be provided after the table is set up. Mr Tan (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This article needs work to be promoted to GA status, but GA nomination is certainly a possibility at the end of the tunnel. I am happy to leave this review open while changes are made. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you LT, you have my blessings :) But I slightly disagree with the suggestion for specifying the two eras "15th-18th century" and "18th-20th centuries" with "Cham vassals" and "Increasing trade". If you read the content carefully, the two eras are definitely not restricted to relations with Champa and trade. In the 20th century, the VN Communists played a significant role in building the MCP. I felt that adding contrasting aspects of Malayan/Malaysian-Vietnamese collaborations and contacts adds spice and flavour to the article.


 * If you trace the article history, I had made an attempt to summarise the reference to "Tonkinese soldiers had captured a Malaccan tributary mission ...." to its current form. (You may wish to refer to the earlier version for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia%E2%80%93Vietnam_relations&oldid=562411447) I definitely welcome any additional attempts to paraphrase further if possible, and the bulk of the quotation (very badly done for the prior revision) was quoted as part of the Bibliography. I am partly doing this to avert the possibility of any edit wars from previous editors, who may have strong feelings in the inclusion of particular paragraphs or points into the article body in the foreseeable future. Mr Tan (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Manual of style wise, perhaps Singapore–United_States_relations (short) or United Kingdom–United States relations (long) can be used as Guidelines for formatting, I think.


 * I think the idea of a "Present" section may not be very viable; it is a very subjective term in my opinion and your proposed new format of resegmenting would also include "present day" from 1959 in "North Vietnam" while classifying "Vietnamese refugees" as late as 1990s as "Historical". I would try to step in to contribute as much as possible, but personally I have limited time due to work commitments. Mr Tan (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Selamat pagi! I have advised Croatia–Hungary relations as a model, because it is already a Good Article, and might have a good structure (the two articles you have proposed are not yet at that level). I'm more than happy for you to ignore the solutions I have proposed, as it is the problems that need attention. Please take your time (within reason), if you are interested in improving this article within a week or two, I would be happy to wait. I wish you well, LT910001 (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't quite agree that we should use just one article as the sole example, as the historical details and content makeup cannot just be blindly translated as the correct "standard" on the other. I think it would be best to draw various sources for cumulative/collaborative inspiration, and modify the article accordingly to which it would feel most fluid for reading purposes. As I had gathered from Wikipedia's guidelines, I don't see any strict regulations requiring articles to adhere to a certain manner or pattern of prose. This, certainly suggest that a certain amount of discretion would be needed on the part of the editor to write in a manner that he/she thinks best. It just a bit like art, I feel one needs some degree of innovation to intepret what seems best based on the existing framework of guidelines. But by all means, LT--please go ahead to make any necessary amendments that you may feel best, there is absolutely no such thing as "ownership" of content. I just hope that you could play a part, too to provide additional inputs and modifications that you may feel good, although I strongly recommend that some research/prior reading might be necessary to provide meaningful inputs on the content level. I mean, inputs directly into the article body where you may fell appropriate, and not just solely restrict your role to this talk page here :) Mr Tan (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But with all said, definitely the Croatia-Hungary relations is a good sample that we can look at to draw inspiration for room for improvements, although I would not solely look at this article in order to provide a more holistic analysis on possible improvements that maybe made. In time to come, definitely this article would need rework from time to time as bilateral ties develop, but at the present moment I can't think of any improvements, although I will input accordingly when time permits and whatever I may feel otherwise in time to come. Again, I do strongly persuade you to make inputs into the article where you feel might bring a positive change, too ^^ Mr Tan (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All right. I am going to mark this review as complete with no promotion. As a reviewer I can't both edit and review (would be a slight conflict of interest!) This article does not meet GA criteria for the following reasons: it isn't broad enough, and the readability is hampered both by structure and confusing prose. I have updated the table above accordingly. I encourage you to renominate when you feel this article has reached a suitable quality, and strongly suggest that it undergoes peer review first (WP:Peer review). LT910001 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)