Wikipedia:Peer review/Kuala Lumpur/archive2

Kuala Lumpur

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for featured article status soon. I would like to obtain creative feedback from experienced editors regarding the changes that can be made to this article so that it fulfils the featured article criteria. Kuala Lumpur is already a good article, so it probably doesn't require a major overhaul in order to become a featured article. Is it incomplete in any way? Does it have enough citations, and are these citations valid? Does it need copyediting in terms of grammar and style? Does the lead section accurately represent the general idea of the subject, hence making it comprehensive? Are there any rules of thumb that ought to be followed when nominating an article for FA status? In addition, is the Kuala Lumpur category underpopulated and do these relevant articles contain substantial information?

Your cooperation is appreciated. Thanks, Acs4b ^{T C U} 14:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I note that it is your intention to bring this article to FAC. That's a reasonable objective, but please be aware that it is a large step from Good Article to Featured Article, and much work will be required to bridge that gap. I have not had time for a thorough read-through, but here are points that will require attention:-

• Many sources are not fully formatted, lack publisher details and access dates
• A large number of your sources links are dead or give timeouts. Check the toolbox at the top right of this review page.
• Use the same toolbox to identify and correct numerous links to disambiguation pages.  Done
• Citations are uneven throughout the article,with many uncited statements often encompassing whole paragraphs. A "citation needed" tag has been placed in the Geography section; there could be many more.
• Lead citations: The lead should be a concise summary of the whole article, avoiding too much specific detail. If the lead is doing its job properly, I would not expect to see so many citations within the lead; the citations should be within the main text.

I have moved several citations from the lead to more applicable sections of the article. I have also rephrased two or three sentences within the lead so that the section represents a more concise description of the topic. I assume that there is no specific rule on Wikipedia regarding the number of citations that should be placed in the lead, since some articles invariably have longer lead sections than others, but what is the ideal number for an article like Kuala Lumpur? There are currently 9 citations there (initially there were 14); some of the sentences are general and therefore do not require citations of any sort within the lead, at least. Acs4b ^{T C U} 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:MOS advises that a lead should not consist of more than four paragraphs  Done
• There are some wonderful images in the article, but too many. The text is often squeezed. I'd say you could get rid of three or four of the least interesting without detriment to the article.
• Image licence issues. You need to establish that File:Japanese troops mopping up in Kuala Lumpur.jpg is PD in the USA. A check of the licensing on all images is advisable before FAC.where image reviewing is especially rigorous.
• There are some out of date statistics in the text, e.g. GDP figures given for 10 years ago  Done
• Prose: although I have not checked this out in detail, I have observed a few things:-
  • The History section fails to clarify the colonial context (British rule) at the time of the city's foundation, so that a sudden reference to "the British administrative offices" makes no sense.
  • There is a tendency to write in very short paragraphs, often one line or less. This destroys the prose flow.
  • Some of the sentences are over-complicated and awkwardly worded, e.g. "Despite the relocation of federal government administration to Putrajaya, certain government’s important machineries such as Bank Negara Malaysia (Central Bank of Malaysia), Companies Commission of Malaysia and Securities Commission as well as most embassies and diplomatic missions have remained in the city." This is one example, there are many more. A thorough prose check throughout is necssary, if this article is to have any realistic chance at FAC.

I hope these pointers will help you improve the article on the way to achieving your goal. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. Your review is very helpful in the sense that it has highlighted some of the major flaws in the article's structure that need to be rectified before nominating it for FA status. Acs4b ^{T C U} 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)