Indonesia

Previous peer review (Sept 2006)

Ultimately we'd like to get this to FA status - it is a completely different article compared to September's version! Advice on anything is welcomed. Please note, we have spent a lot of time trying to broad in our coverage without making the article way too long. Of course, there is always more that could be said, but I hope we have found the right balance between what we say on this article and what is said on the linked more specific articles. Merbabu 05:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, well done on the improvements. I'm hoping we can achieve FA approval soon, but every improvement we make is worthwhile in itself even without the gold star. Some comments:

Yes, good idea. Any particular rivers? Or perhaps just a general comment about their importance and a link to a list to keep word length down. Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good idea again. Will do.
How would we update it? I am happier now that it explains that it represents the majority religions in each case. Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that the map had some inaccurate representations, and the Imoeng was pushing Indon to redraw it from scratch. Maybe this has already been done? (Caniago 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Yes Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • paragraph now added in geography section--Merbabu 10:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highest mountain and lake now mentioned. --Merbabu 10:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – stick to “official” figures as a base. But do we mention that other estimates may be higher? Are they credible (even if cannot be proven “correct”?).Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using the census number and put a footnote explaining why it could be underestimated. I think coming up with a credible estimate would be difficult. (Caniago 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Um, I think if it is one sentence, then it is OK to repeat if particularly relevant to the section. I don’t think we can argue that poverty is not (a) one of the most, if not most important issue in Indonesia and (b) is directly related to economics, afterall, economics ultimately is about the satisfaction of human material needs. I think 1 sentence in issues, and a bit more in Eonomics. Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I trimmed the description of poverty although not quite down to 1 sentence. [2].--Merbabu 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, I’d have to agree. I did some major work on this so the section is still a bit raw and new. Will try to trim. Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: this is hard. I did trim some of it out. I actually think that it is all good information. I'm not sure how to define the level of detail, but I think having it thick with well referenced information, is better than just waffle. Previously, it was well off track focussing on side issues. Now it is focussed on economic fundamentals and recent history (which i think is important for understanding - rather than just 2005/06 figures in complete isolation). --Merbabu 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. Needs some thought. But remember that Java (for better or worse) “dominates” Indonesia politically and culturally. Maybe that should be put in.Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, needs investigation.Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Culture is probably the weakest section of the whole article.Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article in the Economist that mentions both as behind poverty increase in this period. I think both should be mentioned. [4] Merbabu 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will help to fix some of these issues as I get time. (Caniago 13:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • I have gone thru each of these and fixed up the article. Except the last point, which is the most difficult. Give me a week, please. --Merbabu 13:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]