Talk:Minangkabau people/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk · contribs) 11:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review
Hello! The page appears to be well written. Detailed analysis coming up next week. All the Best! Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be reviewing it line by line.Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification regarding the population
In the first paragraph of the lead section it has been mentioned, "Today 4 million Minangs live in West Sumatra, while about 3 million more are scattered throughout many Indonesian and Malay peninsular cities and towns." Please clarify:

1) The text "Today" is subjective and misleading. Please provide the dates when the last census of Minangkabau people was conducted.

2) Please provide the reliable sources/references for the figures "4 million" and "about 3 million". They have not been provided anywhere in the document.

3) In the information box, census figures for Indonesia pertains to the year 2000 and 1983 for Malaysia. While the figures in the lead section appear to be latest (referred as 'Today'). Why the information box refers to such an old piece of data?

If the improvements are not done, then it would mean that the figures are an assumption of the author of the article and would violate the 'no original research' property needed for an article to be a good article. Please make amends at the earliest! Regards, Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review
This page stands failed because of the following reasons.

1)No explanation provided to for the queries raised in the above section.

2)The first paragraph of the Etymology section delves upon a legend and its story while the last line of the section refers to the first mention of the word Minangkabwa. Considering the layout and contents of this section, it appears only the last line has reference to support its claim. But there is no such citation for the first paragraph.

Highly debatable theory presented in the first paragraph of the above mentioned section and appears as an original research of the author of the first paragraph of this section.

3) Incorrect Usage of the punctuation marks in the article: Improper or no usage of the punctuations. Fourth paragraph of the history section should have a comma after the text 'Late in the 18th century'. It is one such reference. The article is devoid of punctuations in many places.

Points 1) and 2) refer to violation of the point 1) and point 2) of GA Criteria.

The article is very close to GA and need proper citations and references attached to at specific locations to make it an accurate and verifiable article to read.


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Quality of article is improper.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * MoS compliant.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * This section is good.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Some statements have at least one reliable reference missingGA -Fail.
 * C. No original research:
 * Original research found.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * All major aspects of the topic are covered.
 * B. Focused:
 * Article remains focused on the topic throughout.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No bias found.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Article is stable.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * No problem with images
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Appropriate Images provided
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Fail 25 June 2012

Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)