Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia

Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia
I have been working on this for a while, and I finally think it's ready for FAC. I just did up the footnotes (do let me know if any of them are malfunctioning; I'm not exactly a pro at this yet), and tried to add some pictures to spruce things up. There aren't many relevant pictures to this article that wouldn't be fair use, so there's only one fair use photo, of the famous dagger-brandishing incident. The pictures of politicians were the best things I could dig up that were semi-relevant (which wouldn't fully justify fair use) and free. Just in case it isn't blatantly clear, this is pretty much a self-nom. The only editors of this article so far have been me and Ganymead. (Not that I'm implying ownership or anything.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's not much to see, but this article has been through peer review. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Question: Do wikipedia guidelines encourage notes and references to be merged like this? I'm not sure it's such a hot idea, but if it's generally acceptable, I'd say the article is pretty well polished (though perhaps rather obscure). - JustinWick 02:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've changed the Notes and References to fit the usual format. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, well-written article despite its possibly controversial nature. - Mailer Diablo 08:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: Maintains NPOV and presents a comprehensive case. My only quibble is that the full text of the article is now present before the discussion, which means that it's present before readers have developed their interest and curiosity over its wording.  I would recommend that the full text be last, not as an appendix, but as a reference-like section.  I.e. I will see an author used in a footnote, wonder about it, and flip down, but a discussion of a reference before I have an interest will delay me and possibly dissuade me.  Other than that, it's a well written, well structured article and definitely Featured quality. Geogre 13:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - a very objective take on what is a very controversial issue in Malaysia -- Bob K | Talk 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: Good example of what a wikipedia FA should be comprehensive, informative and well referenced. Giano | talk 18:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support a very thorough and interesting article. I do have one question though. Could we replace the picture of Lim Keng Yaik near the end of the article with something better? The picture at the moment seems to show him eating his lunch. Lisiate 23:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not possible, unfortunately. The only good photo of him I could find is copyrighted by the Parliament of Malaysia (and is also bloody small) which means it can only be used under fair use, which would be very tenuous for an article not having him as the main topic. So unless a Malaysian uploads a better picture of him to LensaMalaysia.com (which licenses all its images under the CC-by licence), that picture will either have to stay or be removed without a replacement. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor object in the recent edits the note/ref order has been messed up and the numbering is off.--nixie 23:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Problem fixed. Apparently, someone forgot a line break. Pentawing 02:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - an article which would look interesting on the front page, combat systemic bias and show Britannica what they aren't capable of creating. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 03:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support- great article --Terence Ong |Talk 03:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Notwithstanding footnote numbering issues, well referenced. Saravask 03:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced, interesting, won't allow anyone to complain when it's on the main page. Heck, guests to the site might even learn something! Harro5 08:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. There's an unexplained reference in Article 136 in the text of article 153. You don't, in general, need to explain definitions and similar cross-references, but this looks like it is substantial enough to explain. Should be easy to fix. I did tighten up the language a bit. Monicasdude 15:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. __earth 10:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. well-researched for a difficult topic. --Vsion 11:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Object The article is interesting, but, unfortunately, not too tightly written, nor clearly focussed. The biggest problem is that the context of the article is not clearly set forth :
 * Why is there so much controversy around Article 153 -- what is the racial situation exactly? It's about racial tension and preferential rights for indigenous people, I can figure that out, but a succinct overview is never provided.
 * There is also poor structuring, long, run-on sentences, and unclear sections. A few examples:
 * repetition of "Malay and other indigenous peoples of Malaysia" in the lead and awkward introduction of the term  Bumiputra (In fact, the whole lead paragraph needs rewriting for structure.)
 * This is much clearer now. Also, the info in the new lead to the Controversy section really cleared things up for me. I think summary of that stuff should be in the lead, even a sentence would I think make a big difference: "Bumiputra are biggest population segment with the tiniest economic participation" kinda thing.
 * Long unfocussed sentences: For example Despite this, the Article is heatedly debated both privately and publicly among Malaysians, with the opposition, especially the Democratic Action Party, often against its implementation although ostensibly for maintaining the article. AND Some took the latter view, like Singaporean politician Lee Kuan Yew (later the first Prime Minister of Singapore) of the People's Action Party (PAP; its Malaysian branch would later become the DAP), who publicly questioned the need for Article 153 in Parliament, and called for a "Malaysian Malaysia".
 * In general, I still have a problem with the crispness of the writing; my first example above indicates the problem, not wrong but simply not easy to read. There are a number of examples of this.
 * "Racial rioting" section unclear It begins: On 13 May 1969, a few days after the general election, race riots broke out leading to the deaths of nearly 200 people (though some estimates give a number five times that) and goes on to mention the NEP, but doesn't really make clear what was going on with the rioting and how it relates to Article 153.
 * This is also clear now.
 * Overall, this is rather muddy and needs focus. --Tsavage 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I added a mini-lead for the controversy section to give a brief overview of the situation. I can't see what's so wrong about the lead, but good catch of the repetition &mdash; I fixed that. I'm not sure what's wrong with the first example of an unfocused sentence, but I rewrote the other one. Regarding the racial riots, I thought I'd linked to the article about the incident to provide some context, but it turns out I didn't. Anyway, I've added a paragraph about the background of the riot as well. Johnleemk | Talk 10:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additions! I find a great improvement; hopefully that is the case for all. I am letting my objection stand, now soled on the basis of quality of writing. I can add more examples, but overall, the chronological listing style, long sentences, and frequent quotes don't work for me on the "great, even brilliant" writing level. I find it hard to stay focussed as I read through. This is not a unanimiity thing, so an objection does not automatically put it out of the FA running. --Tsavage 00:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is pretty much a unanimity thing: if Raul654 thinks you have an actionable objection, he will not promote. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Otherwise, it wouldn't be such a WikiStressful experience to get an article to pass FAC. - Mailer Diablo 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My objection stands and I believe it is actionable. I don't think the writing is "compelling, even brilliant". I would be disappointed to see this promoted to FA. In my last comment, I was attempting to do two things: 1) to recognize the amount of work that's gone into it and be perhaps supportive; 2) to not have to go enter into further rounds of finding examples (as opposed to "all instances of"), having them corrected, and then looking for more if my overall objection still wasn't satisfied. This is a problem, obviously, with something as subjective as "compelling prose". The determination will vary by article, and by reviewer. Be that as it may, the bar is explicitly set very high for FAs, and if I can't easily read a piece through and emerge with a clear picture, for me, at least, it doesn't meet the standard. To a point, I can get examples to support such an opinion, but if a general rewrite is required, there is no practical way to come up with directly actionable items to the end of the process, short of citing virtually every sentence. Raul654 apparently evaluates the standing objections to see whether they are actionable. In instances like this, since no-one else has a similar complaint, it essentially becomes up to him to decide if he agrees with a single assessment. So, really, it is unanimity of "acceptable" votes, and what is acceptable is by no means black and white. (That's also why, with many articles where a group of partisan editors get together, formally or informally, to back it, it must be very difficult to see how many "objective" votes there are, and where to even begin to assess consensus. Not the case here, perhaps, but certainly with many FACs.) One thing seems clear: every "substandard" article that gets promoted creates more future work. On the other hand, trying to hold things to the existing really high standards, as tough as that may be, would pay off by providing some really great precedents, practical examples that would in turn possibly accelerate the process of producing high quality articles. --Tsavage 21:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I am on holiday with *very, very* limited internet access. I've added some contextual information to the lead as Tsavage suggested, but am unable (due to time constraints) to follow up on the "brilliant prose" complaint. In any case, I don't feel anything is particularly wrong with the writing, so an example or two in addition to the lengthy sentences problem might help &mdash; if this FAC doesn't work out, I can always work on the article next year. Johnleemk | Talk 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal
I'm posting this here to gain consensus: I think that the full text should be appended at the end of the article, right before the external links and references. This will create a sense of "building up" of interest in the article, culminating in the reader being so interested, he or she bothers to read the full text of the article. It's purely a readership issue, but I think it will improve the presentation flow as a FA. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 04:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * May I suggest moving it to Wikisource. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Oh, it's there already! =P - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Bah. I decided to be bold and just do it. Johnleemk | Talk 08:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good boldness, then, as that was my only grousing, too. :-) Geogre 11:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'm cool with it, but does this mean that I should add the text of the Title II to the end of USA PATRIOT Act, Title II? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a single article of a constitution. The USA PATRIOT Act is immense, and that would be the entire Act.  As I understand it, it was rather intentionally written to be difficult to read and comprehend.  I think this article discusses the nuances and importance of very specific turns of phrase in the Article, so the text is probably a necessary adjunct. I'm not sure the same is true of USA PATRIOT, as, apparently, both supporters and opponents of it are self-confessed non-readers of it.  Geogre 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been a week - can we promote? -- Natalinasmpf 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)