User talk:Hudaimran/First Draft

Peer Review (Rayleigh Lee) I’ve formatted my peer review in two parts; the first part goes through the checklist provided by the Wikipedia training library, the second part are general comments I found to be relevant to your article. The first part evaluates the quality of the Wikipedia article as a whole, while the second part focuses on your individual contributions.

'''Wiki Peer Review Criteria '''

''A lead section that is easy to understand ''

I see that no changes were made to the lead section; I agree with your decision to keep it the way it is because the existing lead section is already thorough. A clear structure

The way the content is separated under different subheadings makes sense to me; the writing falls under the appropriate subheadings. However, I would suggest moving the ‘The wave of Corruption under Suharto’ below ‘Public Services Corruption’ so that the content flows from general to specific. If the Suharto case is important in understanding the context of corruption in Indonesia as a whole, I would explain its significance and how it relates to corruption today.

I would also suggest splitting the ‘Economic and social costs’ into separate subheadings. While they are related, the section makes a clear transition from discussing economic impacts to social impacts.

''Balanced coverage ''

The coverage of corruption in Indonesia seems balanced overall. You’ve dedicated an appropriate amount of coverage to each subheading. I would suggest expanding more on ‘Public Service Corruption,’ as other subsections seem to have sufficient content.

''Neutral Content ''

The sources used to support the article seems to be neutral. However, some aspects of the article make an argumentative statement.

‘The wave of Corruption under Suharto’ section states, “Indonesians knew that the lavish lifestyle of the first family’s children was supported by the President’s influence and authority. Tommy could get many business contracts due to his father and this is a clear sign of nepotism and corruption.”
 * The draft states, “interestingly, the United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime considers ICW as ‘the leading NGO’ in ending corruption in Indonesia.” The tone of the sentence detracts from understanding the ICW as a legitimate anti-corruption effort; the previous sentence refers to the ICW as the most salient anti-corruption program. Moreover, ‘interesting’ is a descriptive term, which risks editorializing the tone. It is also unclear what is meant by interesting. If the UN’s recognition of ICW is a contentious issue, I would add why it was contentious, and the core arguments on why it was important.


 * I also think you can consider striking the last two sentences of ‘Economic and social costs’; “giving bribes to get the work done becomes a norm and people are unable to recognize it as a bad thing. If this happens, eliminating corruption will be a rigorous task for policy-makers in Indonesia.” This seems like a personal analysis of Indonesia’s situation, rather than encyclopedic writing. The overall message is already implied previously, so I don’t think it’s necessary to repeat it, and risk drawing conclusions.

''Reliable sources ''

The sources used mostly refer to journal articles or studies from published authors and credible organizations. However, many links don’t work (links 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11), and there is one empty citation (7), which should be updated. The first link, which cites the book ‘Corruption, Violence and the Poverty of Nations’ is also inaccessible unless you purchase it. This makes it difficult for some readers to track the original information.

The draft cites one New York Times article, which is not problematic in itself as a reference, but seems to be a reflective commentary article rather than a news article. Because the last three sentences of the ‘The wave of Corruption under Suharto’ draws heavily from the New York Times article, the summary of events sound general rather than providing hard facts. For instance, the draft states, “Government officials used to construct policies favoring the few elites (including Suharto's family and relatives) rather than the entire nation.” It would be helpful to find a source where examples and specific instances of those policies can be found.

'''Personal comments '''

Comments in general: I think you did a solid job in fleshing out the content and approaching corruption from meaningful angles. The content is also substantiated with many studies. I think the overall quality of the content is very strong. However, some aspects of the writing feels editorialized, and argumentative. This can be avoided by citing studies which made the original argument, and bringing in specific cases to support a statement. Moving forward, I think it would be valuable to expand on the specific cases of public services corruption, in order to better support the existing content on the draft.

Comments on content quality: The ‘Economics and social costs’ details how corruption negatively affects Romania’s economy. However, the content seems to be theory and analysis based. While economic analysis is valuable, it would be helpful to outline how the loss of opportunities affect Indonesia. For instance, “with fewer investors coming in Indonesia, it translates into lower growth rates. Foreign investors decided not to invest in Indonesia as existing companies routinely have to pay bribes to public servants to get the work done,” can be reframed as “A study published by the GAN Business Anti-corruption Portal states that bribery is a concern for foreign investors, as a third of companies perceive bribery as a condition to securing a government contract.”

''Strengths and weaknesses: ''

The strengths of your contributions are the new sections, such as ‘Public Services Corruption,’ and fleshing out the ‘Economic and social costs,’ which define various type of costs that come with corruption.

I found no grammar errors in your writing aside from uses of brackets in the third sentence. “His wife, Ibu Tien, also a close advisor to the president, was actively seen as bending the laws for her own gains and so became known as Madam Ten Percent (Raymond Fisman).” If the term was coined by Raymond Fisman, this can be made clear in another sentence instead of using brackets.

Improvements can be made in the tone of the article to make the language more specific. Simplified language is helpful to the reader, but the wording should be specified when required.


 * For example, “Probably, the most salient anti-corruption program is the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW), an Indonesian non-government organization that aims to report and reduce corruption,” can be reframed as “the most salient anti-corruption efforts spearheaded by Indonesian civil society is the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW), formulated in 1998 after the overthrow of Suharto”.


 * The last sentence states, “Indonesia can also learn from other countries successful anti-corruption programs such as World Bank-led initiatives in countries such as Nigeria, where the establishment of Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), played a positive role in raising awareness and reducing corruption.” This sentence can also be reframed as “the World Bank recommends Indonesia to emulate successful anti-corruption initiatives such as the establishment of Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Nigeria, which played a positive role in raising awareness and reducing corruption.”


 * Under the ‘Economics and social costs’, heading the draft states, “according to a report, 35 % potential investors decided not to operate in the country due to corruption.” The original report from the World Bank should be cited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayleighlee0801 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

'''This peer review is based on the Wikipedia questions. (Andreea Dobrea)'''

This draft is a great start to a great Wikipedia article! The article is relevant to the topic chosen and does not drift away from the main factors. I especially enjoyed all the additional information you have included that was not part of the original Wikipedia article. I also enjoyed the part on Suharto as it is very relevant to the topic.

Since I am not quite sure what you will include and leave out from the original article, I cannot really comment on the content, although I think (if it is not what you are already doing) you should consider leaving both the information that is already there as well as adding everything you have posted in your draft.

Overall, the draft seemed to lack the "neutral" aspect of a Wikipedia article as certain sentences/wordings were pointed towards an opinion. Adjectives such as "lavish" or "contentious" should be left out, as learned in the Wikipedia training. The sentence "Tommy could get many business contracts due to his father and this is a clear sign of nepotism and corruption" is in my opinion a little biased and should be revised. Another similar example is the sentence " If this happens, eliminating corruption will be a rigorous task for policy-makers in Indonesia."

I also think you should go even further in substantiating some of your claims with citations, making sure you use a variety of sources that share neutral tones. For instance, the sentence at the beginning, where you state that Muhammad Suharto was "widely believed he was enriching his family and close friends" would require a citation as "it is widely believed" is not specific enough (Who believes this?). Additionally, starting your sentences with "Furthermore", "Moreover", etc. also gives into an essay style paper.

Another sentence I would consider revising is: "Probably, the most salient anti-corruption program is the Indonesian Corrupt Watch (ICW), an Indonesian non-government organization that aims to report and reduce corruption. [13] t was formulated in 1998 after the overthrow of Suharto." In my opinion, you should not start this sentence with "probably" or include "salient" in it as it is not precise enough and sounds more of an opinion-based essay. Instead, you should focus on the ICW and try to describe what the organization is and its goals in an objective matter.

Next, I would revise certain sentences: - "Moreover, the UN and World bank-led Sustainable Development Goals, where ending corruption is a major goal." - In the same manner, you should consider revising this sentence as well. "According to Transparency International, 2017 report, Indonesia has a score of 37.This means it is still under corrupt countries category." I think you could potentially merge the two sentences together instead of adding "this means". - "Poor people in Indonesia are the ones who get affected the most." In this case, you have already mentioned this sentence in the previous paragraph, hence it might be unnecessary to repeat it. - The people who suffer most are the poor[8] as they are pressured to finance payments through their already tight budgets and the effectiveness of social services are less accessible indirectly. Here, the citation is simply at the wrong place.

Lastly,I'm not sure what you will and will not keep from the original Wikipedia article, but in my opinion, I think that maybe you should eliminate the heading "public services corruption" and maybe place the relevant information from that paragraph into another one as it is only a few sentences long.

Other than that, your sources seem relevant and you have done a great job at not plagiarizing and including your information in your own words.

Keep up the great work!

Manuel Balan Review
This is overall in good shape. I agree with the comments above, particularly in terms of tone (be careful with editorializing, keep it objective) and sources (more and better use of sources is needed). But this is off to a good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbalan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)