Talk:Pekarangan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 16:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is good, I see that you had it copy edited previously and I made a few changes as well. The biggest remaining issue is that you tend to use passive phrases like "are suggested" or "are assumed", I left comments below showing how to fix that.
 * A comment: I've been trying to incorporate various forms of hedging language, since the early version of the article was biased and I have to change it. However, I should have learned more about the context of its use (e.g. "might" is good in an encyclopedia; "are suggested" and similar passive forms are probably not). Thank you for making sense of that. :) Dhio-270599 04:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Great job with the references, I like how you have them formatted and you use high-quality scholarly sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * See the note below about the image in the lead.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Looks good, I know you've put a lot of effort into this article and I like that you got a peer review before bringing it to GAN. It's close to meeting the GA standard, there are just a few issues, explained in the comments below.  I'm placing it on hold for one week so you can look at the comments and make corrections. (I won't have computer access until next Monday, I'll look at it then.) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being diligent about making these corrections! I think we're all set now and I'm happy to pass as GA. (p.s. I noticed one more thing, I don't want to hold up the review but for future improvement: when you mention the talun system in the history section, please briefly explain what the talun system is.) --Cerebellum (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for passing the article as GA! I've added a short description of talun as well. :) Dhio-270599  13:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I know you've put a lot of effort into this article and I like that you got a peer review before bringing it to GAN. It's close to meeting the GA standard, there are just a few issues, explained in the comments below.  I'm placing it on hold for one week so you can look at the comments and make corrections. (I won't have computer access until next Monday, I'll look at it then.) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being diligent about making these corrections! I think we're all set now and I'm happy to pass as GA. (p.s. I noticed one more thing, I don't want to hold up the review but for future improvement: when you mention the talun system in the history section, please briefly explain what the talun system is.) --Cerebellum (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for passing the article as GA! I've added a short description of talun as well. :) Dhio-270599  13:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * Lead: Why does the image in the lead say it is a possible example of a pekarangan? I remove the word possible from the caption, or use a different image if you're not sure that's a pekarangan.
 * In many cases, it's hard to define a clear line between a pekarangan and surrounding mixed gardens (the "kebun-talun") in villages (Stoler, p. 85 (first page), footnote 2). In the lead image, clove trees dominate; it feels like it might resemble a mixed garden since plants in mixed gardens are generally less diverse than pekarangans (Christanty et al., p. 137, table 6.1). However, the pictured garden is adjacent to a house (a very "pekarangan" thing) and the image is, until now, the best picture I can find that could represent a rural pekarangan, with free license. If I may suggest an alternative, that might be adding a [note 1] and using said statement from Stoler. But if it's not allowed, the best thing I can do is removing the "a possible example" phrase from it.
 * No issues with adding a note, that sounds good to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Caption: I changed the order of the adjectives in the first image's caption, just so you know English has specific rules about adjective order.
 * Thank you for the edit!


 * Term: I don't think the explanation of the name should be in a note, I can see why you did it though cause it's not obvious where that information fits in the article. What do you think about creating a new section called "Etymology" or "Name" right after the lead, with that information in it?  I would also change "described to be widely used" to simply "widely used".
 * A really good idea! The Ashari reference described the term's multi-intrerpretations [in its scope as a home garden], so having a section for its etymology is certainly a good idea -- I'll do this soon.
 * Made the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhio270599 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * P2KP: When you mention this program in the lead, you should include the full name not just the initials, like you do in "Pekarangan programs".
 * Done.


 * Plants: I would change the phrase "are suggested to be more dominant", it is written in the passive voice so we don't know who is doing the suggesting. I recommend either simply "are more dominant" or something like "According to Christanty, perennials are more dominant".
 * Done; using the second alternative.


 * Plants: The sentence beginning with Few plants propagate without intentional human intervention is confusing to me, should it say Most plants propagate?
 * Thank you for pointing this out! Done.


 * Animals: For the paragraph about the fish ponds, I would remove This might be the reason, and just start that sentence with Villagers avoid. It sounds too tentative otherwise.
 * Done.


 * Animals: Is suggested to be higher than that of teak forests - again, it's unclear who made that suggestion. You should either use the name of the scholar who says that, or if it's generally accepted just change to Is higher than that of teak forests.
 * Done.


 * Animals: I couldn't quite understand the sentence beginning with The low level of plant diversity, consider revising. I thought we were talking about bird diversity not plants, maybe it should be something like: The pekarangans used for the Jambi study had unusually low levels of plant diversity, which may account for the results. Or you could just remove that sentence I don't think you need it.
 * Done; exactly as per your alternative.


 * Ecology: For the canopy section, are there really any other vertical forces effecting the soil besides raindrops? If not, you could change that first sentence to just functions as a protection from raindrops.
 * Done; exactly as per your alternative.


 * Uses: I couldn't understand the sentence about Stoler's u-shaped curve, but I'm not sure if there's a solution for that. Maybe it's just a hard concept to grasp without seeing the graph. Can you think of any other way to explain it?
 * Can "rock bottom" or "lowest point" be a good alternative? The alternative might be "Ann Stoler argued that as a rural family acquire more area of rice field, garden use become less intense, up until the owned rice field reached 2,000 square meters (22,000 sq ft). From the point, garden use starts to increase. Such size of the rice field is considered as the minimal requirement for a family to fulfill its rice needs."
 * Yes, that alternative is easier for me to understand. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Dhio-270599 23:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sociology and economy: I would change assumed to be mainly developed to are mainly developed.
 * Done.


 * Culture: You should explain who Abdoellah is, change that sentence to something like According to the anthropologist Oekan Abdoellah.
 * Done; exactly as per your alternative.


 * Culture: Could you explain what it means for the pawongan area to be regarded as identical to human life? For a reader unfamiliar with the culture it's hard to understand that concept.
 * Erased -- the concept is already mentioned: "pawongan (middle, body, neutral)".


 * History: Per MOS:DECIMAL, the table showing the distribution of pekarangan areas should use decimals, not commas.
 * Done.


 * History: Note #2 seems contradictory to me, the article text says that government showed little interest in extraction of garden yields, but then the note says that they were taxed.
 * The original quote from the Michael Dove (pp. 159-160) source goes like this:
 * I suggest that the reason why home gardens are difficult to study — their diversity and complexity — also makes them difficult to exploit, by anyone other than their owner, on a systematic and large-scale basis. I suggest, that is, that the gardens' complexity makes it difficult for any central authority to extract a portion of their produce. It is relatively easy for a central authority to extract a portion of the yield of a rice field, which produces a crop of a single species, during a limited time, once or twice a year. It is a far different matter to extract a portion of the yield of a home garden, containing a dozen different species or more, all maturing at different times throughout the year.4 I believe that the home garden evolved on Java as it did at least in part because of its inherent non-susceptibility to extraction. (.......) Since Java has been characterized throughout its history by extremely centralized governments dependent on the extraction of agricultural revenue from rural communities, this explains why the home garden developed to the extent that it did on Java. The role played by the home garden in sheltering a significant portion of agricultural income from extraction also explains the otherwise puzzling ritual and cultural de-emphasis (by the peasants) of the home gardens in favour of the wet rice fields. This de-emphasis further shelters the economically more important home gardens, at the same time as it focuses attention on the economically less important wet rice fields.
 * My suggestion that the non-susceptibility of the home gardens to extraction has made them attractive to peasants and unattractive to central governments is supported by the fact, cited by Penny and Ginting (pp. 148-49), that the current national government prohibits any reduction in area of wet rice fields in favour of expansion of the area of home gardens (or any other land use).
 * (4This does not mean that the home garden was never subjected to any extraction at all. Both Raffles and Stoler (cited in Penny and Ginting, p. 192n) refer to a long history of government taxation of home gardens.)
 * I probably should treat both arguments as equal (as I did in the gardens' bird diversity) - is that recommended?
 * Hmm, I'm not sure exactly how it should be phrased. I guess something to indicate that it is difficult for governments to tax pekarangans, but they still try to do it. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Will deleting the referring sentence(s) be better, as the reference itself is, kind of, presenting no clear conclusion? Dhio-270599 12:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No I actually think it's an interesting point and should be covered, you could say something along the lines of Since pekarangans contain many species, which mature at different times throughout the year, it is difficult for governments to tax them. But now that I think about it, it might make more sense to say that in the "Sociology and economy" section instead of the history section. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Will this be good? Since pekarangans contain many species, which mature at different times throughout the year, it is difficult for governments throughout Javanese history to tax them systematically. The difficulty also caused the Indonesian government to forbade the reduction of rice fields to the advantage of the gardens as of 1990. Such difficulty might have helped the gardens to be more complex over time. Despite that, past governments still tried to tax the gardens. Dhio-270599 23:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes! I like that. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. :D Dhio-270599 12:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Dry season plants: This isn't required for this GA review, just a suggestion for additional content. You mention in the "plants" section that eggplants are cultivated in the dry season, you could add more information on what plants are cultivated in the dry vs. wet seasons and how the seasons affect the gardens. I don't know anything about tropical gardening so I don't know if you can cultivate plants all year long or only in certain seasons.
 * A good suggestion; however, I haven't found the mentions of such comparison. When I found one, I'll make sure to include it into the article.

--Cerebellum (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for the review! Dhio-270599 16:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)