Wikipedia:Peer review/Pekarangan/archive1

Pekarangan

I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked to develop the article into a FA/GA-status article. However, I've possibly made major mistakes that I haven't known yet (implicit original research? inadequate readability/flow? etc.), thus submitting it to peer review. Any constructive criticisms will be appreciated.

Thank you, Dhio-270599 16:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Tag @HaEr48 Mimihitam (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@J Milburn: @HaEr48: @Wehwalt: @Casliber: Most of the pointed issues are fixed; are there other revisions? (ps: is the quotebox on the "History" section appropriate? I placed the quote there to adjust with the historical significance of "The History of Java") Dhio-270599 06:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

J Milburn and Casliber have given the green light; thank you for the reviews and support! Also, thanks so much for Baffle_gab1978 for his enormous c/e works, and to HaEr48, Wehwalt, and Mimihitam for the reviews and support as well. Dhio-270599 05:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM

A few comments on sourcing, as this is something that will surely be picked up on at FAC:

• "pp." should only be used when there are multiple pages; "p." should be used for a single page.

done Dhio-270599 15:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Your date formatting is inconsistent.

Changed all to "year". Dhio-270599 16:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would recommend against including publishers and locations for journals, but if you're going to use them, be consistent!

Erased publishers on {{cite journal}}. Do locations on {{cite conference}} count? Dhio-270599 15:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend against using that template at all, frankly. The proceedings you're citing are published as books, so I'd cite them as books. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Changed both to {{cite book}} :) Dhio-270599 12:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• You cite a lot of chapters in multi-author volumes. That's fine, but you should be citing them as chapters using {{cite book}} (they'll look something like this: Smith, John (1990). "Blah". In Jones, Jane. Advances in Blah. Oxford: Oxford University Press.). I noticed Abdoellah et al. (and the chapter credited only to IPGR). Definitely the same for Arifin et al., Kaswanto et al., Kehlenbeck et al. x2., and Wiersum.

Done :) Dhio-270599 12:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• There's no location provided for the Ōta source; you probably don't need the series name. Author, year, title, location, publisher should be fine.

Done. Dhio-270599 16:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Check the capitals on your first Soemarwoto source; the second one looks to be incomplete (spell out the journal name, etc.)

The best I could find is Idjah Soemarwoto (on the links to the article); E. Momo Soekatidireja; Aseng Ramlan (which, sadly, passed away last month). Second Soemarw. ref has been fixed. Dhio-270599 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Indonesian sources. Some are obviously academic sources, so will be fine as long as they're not predatory or student journals. But be ready to explain what makes the other sources reliable - are they reputable websites? I'll look through the list again when you've made some fixes based on the above, and will hopefully find time to look through other things in the mean time. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Images look OK.

• The source link for File:Gub-Kwt-12.jpg is dead and the website has a copyright notice. How sure are you that that one is public domain?

Is the third picture on this page sufficient as a substitute? govt source, no mention of copyright/©. Dhio-270599 16:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry; I'm just not sure. Someone at WikiProject Indonesia or media copyright questions (or especially its equivalent on Wikimedia Commons) may be able to help. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• The lead image isn't very high quality; is that the best way to "sell" the subject? It's hard to tell what we're looking at!

Is any of these okay as a, somehow adequate substitute, to the picture, in the context of "traditional home garden" for an average reader?

• 1 (caption: Canopy structure of a pekarangan surrounding a Minang traditional house)
• 2 (caption: A house in Ubud, Bali, and the pekarangan that surrounds it)
• 3 (caption: Sight of a pekarangan through a door)
• 4 (caption: A pekarangan in Yogyakarta)

Dhio-270599 16:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments on text will follow. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Tough; I think these are better pictures (I like the Ubud one!) but you're in a better position to judge whether these really capture the character of pekarangan. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A note: I've recently realized that the Soemarwoto sources have mismatches in its pages. Fixes on Soemarw. footnotes and bibliographies will be done soon. Dhio-270599 16:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixes on Soemarwoto refs done. Dhio-270599 06:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Josh Milburn: all fixes done, including the pictures. Do you have other revisions/comments? Dhio-270599 12:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dhio270599: I agree with Casliber that this is much improved, and that it's probably ready to be submitted to GAC. Sadly, this can sometimes be a slow process. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HaEr48

Nice work putting together all this information, providing well-formatted references for them, and organizing them in a logical manner. Re Original Research, if you're just presenting facts and opinions from your sources without adding your own analysis or conclusion it should be fine. I think this article has a lot of potential, but I think it needs some work before it has a chance at GA. Please see some suggestions below.

• The grammar and prose could be improved a lot. To me this looks like the biggest obstacle to GA or higher status. Some passages are simply ungrammatical, e.g. "Owners do never deny others' requests", "Soil sustainability in pekarangans is supported of several factors", while some are technically grammatical but might not meet the "well written" standard of GA, for example: "Some owners of pekarangans possess livestock and poultry" or "Some of species variations that are planted are partly domesticated". I recommend posting a request at WP:GOCER for someone with good English to go over and improve the prose. While waiting, you should re-read the article and reduce these issues as much as you can, so that the GOCER volunteer won't have too much work to do.
• Lead: Do read up on MOS:LEAD regarding the purpose of the lead section and how it should be written. In particular, it should serve as an intro and summary of the article for people who do not have time to read everything. Content such as "Meanwhile, the Balinese adapted the tri-hita-karana wisdom to their pekarangan, as well as the Madurese with the bappa, babbhu, guru, rato wisdom of courtesy." does not serve anything for those readers because they wouldn't know what many of those words means, while "establishing a program named Percepatan Penganekaragaman Konsumsi Pangan (P2KP, English: Acceleration on Food Diversification), that aims to optimize pekarangan use by applying the Kawasan Rumah Pangan Lestari (KRPL, English: Sustainable Food Houses Region) concept" can be shortened because the exact name of those government programmes are not necessary in a summary.

Done :D Dhio-270599 14:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Related to the previous point, the lead is also overly long. According to MOS:LEADLENGTH, an article this size (~22,000 characters of prose) should have only two or three paragraphs of lead.

Done :D Dhio-270599 14:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Try to maintain a neutral, cool tone when describing something, and do not try to choose words for their "fantastic" effect. I can detect slight WP:PUFFERY or WP:WEASEL in some passages, like "Pekarangans are known for their plant diversity", "Pekarangan is an inseparable part of cultures and social lives around Indonesia ", "Pekarangans are beneficial in fostering social interaction". Let facts speak for themselves, and if needed for effects you could also include scholarly opinions in direct quotes.

I'm trying to fix this. However, is the second paragraph in the "Ecology" section included as WP:PUFFERY? If yes, could it be fixed by "Writer A/B/C/X had said that....." and its variations? (ps: would the given alternative be susceptible to WP:WEASEL?) Dhio-270599 13:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. HaEr48 (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

HaEr48: First of all, thank you so much for the substantial review (and to other reviewers, within or outside the peer review). To be honest, you described my fears about things that degrade the article's quality really well. However, as you said: "To me, [the grammar errors and the lack of flow look] like the biggest obstacle to GA or higher status". While I understand other points well (and thank you for making sense of those), I still don't make sense of that point adequately, and for that I need some time to actually understand, and to evaluate, before making another edit. I think I need to learn from denied FACs (is there any GAN log archive?) and gather useful informations from them, probably making a sub-user page for that as well (lol). (ps: I've submitted the article to WP:GOCE a few days ago, but as they mentioned that "having your article copy edited by our team does not guarantee that the prose will be considered acceptable during any of the above reviews", I've become warned and need to take a major evaluation myself.) Once again, thank you. Dhio-270599 08:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Which part do you not understand about that point? Do you disagree that the writing needs improvement, or do you disagree that poor writing can cause you trouble at GA? HaEr48 (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree to both. However, I don't really have any experience in writing a serious English literature (it's almost always Indonesian in my college) so.. I (kind of) need to understand about how to really make a well-written encyclopedic prose (or engaging prose, or 1a, or anything wikipedians call it) before revising the article seriously. I've gotta learn stuff. Dhio-270599 12:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If only there were an easy answer to that . I too have the same problem. The short term solution is to reread the article and look hard for errors and things to improve (as well as ask for GOCE), but long term what helps for me is to read a lot and a lot of high-quality English texts so that you'll get a better feel for how they're supposed to look like. Even then, you might still make mistakes but not as many and as severe as before. 12:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the considerateness and advice. Dhio-270599 13:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Advise for @Dhio270599: try to masterise Academic English. It is quite different from the variety of English that is used in the media or daily life (e.g. we don't use informal words like "thing" or hyperbolic words like "tremendous"). By using Academic English, your prose will usually be neutral and objective without WEASEL or any of that. If you need more information on this, just send me an e-mail, and I can give you some materials to help you. :-) Mimihitam (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mimihitam: Thank you very much for the offer! I wish I could make use of the materials well. I'll drop my e-mail in your idwiki talk page. (or probably via the 'kirim surel' feature on idwiki for privacy) Dhio-270599 14:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I think talking about FA is a bit premature but the article has good potential. Some comments:

• You use the word "Pekarangan" rather too much when substitutes such as "it" or "the system" might do.

@Wehwalt: Changed the opening sentence (Pekarangan is a type of tropical home garden that has developed in Indonesia, mainly in Java.) to correct the context. The pronoun fixes are ongoing. However, some paragraphs might still consistently use "pekarangan" to keep them in the right context; I'll notify more later. Dhio-270599 13:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would make the first paragraph a shorter summary of what Pekarangan is. In there, I would try to state clearly what Pekarangan is. I don't feel you really do this.

Changed the context (see the opening sentence) arrangement. If it's still inadequate, please tell me what kind of insufficiency it might show - that will be appreciated. Dhio-270599 13:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• "This degradation of sustainability had exposed pekarangans to bad consequences, such as pest outbreaks and a rise in debts as a means to manage pekarangan productions." This is a bit unclear.

If I might know, in what way is it unclear? Dhio-270599 13:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC) rewritten "manage pekarangan productions" to "manage yield productions" Dhio-270599 10:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• "due to their minimal susceptibility to extraction." This is also unclear.

Added "the (extraction) of the yields." Dhio-270599 13:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I can make more comments but what I think you really need is a member of WP:GOCE to come in initially. I am better at polishing prose so it might be better to have someone do a copyedit and then have me polish the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections. Dhio-270599 13:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

I should start by saying that this is a really interesting and valuable topic to cover, and kudos for giving it a go:

• Plant diversity in pekarangans arise from complex interactions between several factors that are not fully understood - what does this mean? Surely it is farmer/villager choice?

• The first paragraph of Ecology is a cumbersome way of saying that the villagers try and grow what is suited to the climate and location, and what they might eat or sell..? And that's it....?

• Accessibility of water affected pekarangans in some ways. - this sentence is redundant and can be removed without losing meaning

• Soil sustainability in pekarangans is supported by several factors. - this is redundant too

@Casliber: First of all, thank you for reviewing (finally another reviewer!)

• For the last two points: I was afraid that every paragraph needs a "generally-explaining" opening sentence, hence the sentences above. But since it's not needed, it's somehow a good news. I've deleted the two.
• For the first two notes: some literature I've read and referred to in the article don't explicitly say that it's "the owner's choice". As much as concluding them as "the owner's choice" kind of makes sense, I'm still concerned: "will it be WP:OR to conclude those in that way?" - I mean, even some of the owner's chosen plants don't necessarily survived, like the case of the Javanese transmigrants'* gardens in Napu Valley, Sulawesi. I might have misunderstood your point, so please don't hesitate to tell if I did.

ps: *what a weird term. Why would the gov't use a word synonymous to reincarnation to refer to the trans-province resettlement program? (this is a trivial rant; don't mind about it)

Dhio-270599 10:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Is "home garden" a good description? Seems a bit more encompassing than that...

It is widely described in various literature as "home gardens", and further description of the garden is explained in the following sentences. Dhio-270599 05:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, it is looking better. I recommend nominating it for GA status Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)