Wikipedia:Peer review/Ketuanan Melayu/archive1

Ketuanan Melayu
I've spent the past six months working on this article and I think it's nearing featured level. It's way long, and some quotes may be redundant, so feel free to be bold and cut whatever appears irrelevant or extraneous. I'm still mulling over using summary style, because I can't see how this would work, except possibly through article titles like Ketuanan Melayu 1963-1965 (or something like that). I think the article is still quite readable anyhow, but then I've spent the past six months getting to know every nook and cranny of the topic well in depth, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to readability. I know there are some roughs spots language- and formatting-wise, so feel free to point them out or better still, fix them. I know the article could use more images, but I think the two existing fair use images are stretching it a bit, and it's hard getting hold of free images that are at least tangentially related. Johnleemk | Talk 19:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave this a copyedit; here's some stuff I spotted while editing that you should probably look at:
 * At certain points it seems ambiguous as to whether you're speaking of the Malayan Union and the Federation of Malaya as entities or events. From their respective articles, it seems that the both names refer to the state, not to the act of unification, and I've edited accordingly in a few places, but this could probably take a little more scrutiny.
 * Subsections would be in order for some of the larger sections (e.g. Pre-independence).
 * Explain in more depth what the Banishment Ordinance is if you're going to call it by name.
 * I'm not sure what "definitive people" means--that might bear explanation.
 * The "May 13" section presents its facts in a confusing order--maybe make it more chronological?
 * Use of terms should be standardized. For each Malay term used, it should be formatted the same way for each use after the first.  I've tried to do this to some extent, but it could use more scrutiny (this is almost always an issue with an article that's written over a period of time).
 * Narrative flow between sections is a little weak at several points.
 * The section on the NDP is actually composed mostly of criticism of the NEP. This criticism should be broken off into a separate section at least, and seems to be focused on more than its importance to the article would dictate, and should probably be balanced by more discussion of what NEP proponents said in response to these critiques.
 * Here's my overall assessment. This is very good stuff, and I had a great time reading it.  It's a very detailed article, which I enjoyed, but it may be a little too in depth on certain points, and it has a few problems with cohesiveness.  I don't think it should be broken up into subarticles, but I did come up with two suggestions for how to deal with this.  First, I would suggest shifting the focus a little away from blow-by-blow accounts of the various occasions on which this issue has cropped up, and towards more overt discussion of the themes and historical trends that link them.  (The information is in the article, but I think it should be more central to the overall structure.)  Second, I would rely a little less on quotations.  I like articles with a lot of quotations in them, but I think this one goes  a little too far at times.  Leave enough in to keep the feel that the article currently has, but consider removing any that could be replaced with a shorter section of text with and still get the same information across.  I think that doing those two things should result in a slightly trimmer and more unified article.  Great work so far, though.  Let me know if you have any questions about this.  RobthTalk 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I did some of the minor stuff already. I'm not sure which of the Malay terms you're referring to, since IIRC I placed everything in italics. The NEP criticism is sort of related to the NDP because there was a lot of discussion at this time about whether the NEP should be continued. I hope I made it clear in the article. The NEP, NDP, etc. are closely related and often equated with ketuanan Melayu, as can be seen from the recent events in Malaysia, but I'm not how to make this clear, as this is based mostly on my own research (and is thus inadmissible). I tried to find more counter-criticisms of the NEP, but basically they all boil down to either a restatement of ketuanan Melayu, or a claim that the Malays have not achieved full economy parity -- both of which are adequately covered by the article, IMO. I'm going to find some quotes to trim tomorrow. I'm not sure which sections don't flow very well, though -- could you give a couple of examples? (I was actually considered that I was providing too much context in some cases, such as the Razaleigh vs Mahathir issue and the sacking of Salleh Abas.) The only one I can think of is the break between reformasi and Abdullah's premiership, and I'm not sure how to bridge this. Maybe I'll go dig up some stuff about the 1999 election and see if ketuanan Melayu was used as an issue there. Johnleemk | Talk 19:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the changes you've made so far. Clarifications, responses, etc., follow:
 * Terms: Italicization is consistent; what wasn't was the use of quotes, wikilinking, and appositive definitions. In general, I tried to place the definition of a term with its first use, and then from then on make the use of wikilinking and quotes consistent, but since I was going section by section there may still be inconsistencies.
 * NEP/NDP etc. Sounds like you've been thinking about this, and it looks like a tricky spot.  It would be great if there was a source that made the connection more overt, but failing that, the way you've reordered it to demonstrate how the NDP grew out of the debate over the NEP looks good.  I think you're right about the explanation of the pro-NEP position being adeguately dealt with in the rest of the article.
 * Other places to improve flow:
 * If possible, it would nice to discuss Mahathir's rise to power right before moving into the section on his administration, to smooth the transition.
 * An explanation of how the 1990 election led into the NEP/NDP debate would be nice.
 * The transition from "Meritocracy" to "Racial politics" is a bit sharp.
 * If all of these can't be ironed out, its not that big of a deal. Narrative structure of articles is sort of my "thing," so I bring it up whenever I see room for improvement, but these aren't huge issues.
 * This is coming along quite well; I'll keep an eye on it and help out if I can. RobthTalk 01:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I dug up some sources and tried to make the connection between the affirmative action policies and ketuanan Melayu more clear, but it might only have muddied the waters further. I've also added some defense of the NEP to the appropriate subsection, although it may not be fully integrated into the flow of the text. I'm having trouble finding quotes to take out; I took out a couple that were never really solid in the first place, but a lot of the rest seems good. I was thinking maybe we could cut down on the quotes from historians, but most of them seem to help the article quite a bit. Sigh...maybe I can get this done tomorrow when I'm not so sleepy. Johnleemk | Talk 17:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah... looking through it, I like all of the quotations, and I don't see anything calling out to be removed; at the same time, it is a big article (94 kb!  Eep!).   It's a difficult balance to strike.  I wish I had some sort of insight, but I'm coming up empty. RobthTalk 16:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I made some modifications to the article based on your suggestions. I couldn't find anything related to the NEP or NDP about the general election, and I couldn't think of a way to better segue "Meritocracy" into "Racial politics", however. Johnleemk | Talk 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I simplified the introduction to just say what the concept is, as well as a brief mention of who uses the term and who opposes it. Also removed reference to the "probable cause for rise of MCA" block from pre-independence section, as I think it is not very relevant to the rest of the section, which discusses the rise of the "Malay rights" movement (if I may call it that way). Kimchi.sg | talk 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is relevant, since the MCA was the first to challenge the idea that only the Malays could be sovereign over Malaya. I also restored Malaya to the lead, since Malaysia and Malaya are two different geopolitical entities, and some proponents of ketuanan Melayu explicitly claim only Malaya (since technically the natives of East Malaysia aren't Malays) for the Malays. I also spruced up the lead to act as an overview of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Johnleemk | Talk 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My concern is cosmestic but I feel the article could use larger photos i.e. wider width. The article is fairly long and readers might want to see some illustrations. (heh, two of the photos are mine, so, the ulterior motive is greater publicity for my pix but hey, my argument is still valid, isn't it? =) ) __earth (Talk) 11:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm...larger photos? One (the real estate ad) needs to be viewed in close-up for full effect. I suppose the image sizes could be tweaked, but I'm concerned that those with smaller resolutions will be bothered. I'm trying to find more images that can be used, but it's difficult because they have to be relevant to the section in question. It's therefore a bit difficult to track down free images (fair use has rather stringent applications) for most of the article. Photos of the 1955 elections and of Mahathir explaining bangsa Malaysia would probably be fair use, though. The main problem is tracking them down -- there's nothing about them online. Systemic bias...*sigh*. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hurrah, I found free photos to use! I also got a fair use picture of opposition to the Malayan Union from my history textbook. My main concern at present is whether the article is too long. Should we use summary style, or would that just disrupt the flow of an otherwise fine article? I'm leaning in favour of the latter, but obviously I'm biased. Johnleemk | Talk 11:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)