Talk:Parliament of Malaysia/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is poor in some parts, with language such as "should he dies, resigns" and "religion based" (needs hyphen). There are several cases of spaces before refs, which is not in accordance with MOS. Also, the lead section is too short, and does not cover the history of the institution. The paragraph starting "Most motions are typically..." is only one sentence.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are generally too few references. Even purely factual statements need refs if the claim is somewhat particular: "Historically, none of the states forming the Federation of Malaysia had parliaments before independence." "When a member of Parliament dies, resigns or become disqualified to hold a seat, a by-election is held in his constituency unless the tenure for the current Parliament is less than two years, where the seat is simply left vacant until the next general election." etc.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The "Department of Parliament controversy" is too long and goes into too much detail, which takes the balance from the article.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * There are quite a few quotes and references to the writings of one man, Shad Saleem Faruqi, which gives the impression of undue weight and bias.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lampman (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lampman (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)