Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cambodia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cambodia

Self Nomination This is the second time that this article has been nominated (First time and this time by me). I have built this article from the ground up (complete rewrite). In the previous time, I nominated this article there were issues which has to be addressed, they are now addressed. I have not only added expansion to the articles;but I have also make sure the article is up-to-date with the latest Wikipedia trends (New infobox etc.) I deem this article to be worthy of Featured article status. Squash 01:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cambodia/archive1

• Object: any "Trivia" heading is evil and must die. The content of that section (The Khmer language (Cambodia's official) consists of both a large number of consonants and subscripts, which makes it one of the longest languages in the world. It is also one of the hardest languages to master in writing.) is just as bad. I don't know what the difference is between References and Sources, and I very much doubt that the contents of those sections together account for all the material in the article. The lead needs beefing up: I would expect at least references to the Angkor temples and the genocide, since they are the country's main claims to fame. Mark¹ 04:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Trivia section - Removed
  • References condensed to Sources - Done
  • Lead section - Already beefed up from last time, no need to beef it up again
  • Add Khmer Rouge Section - Done
  • Angkor Wat - Done, under "Tourism" header. Squash 07:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • • Good work, but some more issues: the Sources section should be retitled References (the standard heading); a one-paragraph lead I think is still insufficient for an article of this length, and I stand by my earlier suggestions there; the Economy section stops at 2002; the International Rankings section is out of place and contains only one ranking, which could presumably be housed elsewhere; there are language problems requiring a thorough copyedit, notably with regard to capitalisation; the See Also links should be incorporated into the text; has anyone read Miss Becker's book? If not, why is it being recommended? If so, why has it not been used as a reference? Mark¹ 08:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sources heading changed to References - Done
  • Expanded lead (introduction) - Done
  • Economy section expanded - Done
  • International ranking, expanded to 4 things (on par with Australia) - Done
  • Left Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit on article - Done
  • Becker, Futher reading removed - Done
  • See also links incorporated into text - Done Squash 23:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • • I'll do the copyediting, but I wasn't sure what to do about The name "Kampuchea" was kept during the rule of the Khmer Rouge. The list at the start of that section implies that the Khmer Rouge introduced the name. Mark¹ 01:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Corrected Questionable Khmer Rouge and Kampuchea name section - Done Squash 07:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Added 2004 economy information from CIA Website - Done
  • Added references to Angkor Wat and Khmer Rouge in introduction - Done
  • The see also etc. are condensed into the text of the article and is on par with other country articles - Done Squash 10:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • • • Picture overload- we now have far too many. In the Economy section, there must be growth figures available for 2003. What happened to tourist numbers after 911? That was three years ago. Mark¹ 05:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Reduced number of pictures - Done
  • Added economy rate for 2003 - Done Squash 06:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • All issues now resolved - Done (Except for the copyedit) Squash 11:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. This is very close, but I have some small things. 1) I think subsections are a bit overused here. Most sections are very brief (a result of the sub-article style), and therefore it is usually not necessary to add subsections for 10 line sections. Examples of subsections that are not necessary: Origins of name|Uses of names , French colonial|Early colonial, Provinces|Municipalities (Krong), etc. 2) I think the "2003 Cambodia and Thailand riots" subsection doesn't belong in this article. It is very specific, and too detailed. Instead, make a brief mention about it, and move the main contents to either History of Cambodia or Foreign relations of Cambodia (or both). 3) I don't like the "International Rankings" section. It is incomplete (there must be 100s of such rankings), and the meaning and value of each ranking (how reliable are they?) are difficult to determine. If you want to include this info, I suggest you embed it in the text where appropriate. For example, the GPD could be mentioned in the Economy section: "Cambodia's GPD is USD 1900, which ranks it 175th (out of 232) in the CIA's GPD ranking [link here]". 4) I always think either the references or the further reading section should include written works (i.e. books, articles, etc.) There must be many books written about Cambodia, and it would be useful to have some listed as reference or further reading. Jeronimo 07:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Limited number of subsections to only those in the history section - Done
  • Cut down on information of 2003 Cambodia and Thailand riots - Done
  • Put the GDP ranking in economy section and got rid of the rest - Done
  • I added 4 more Cambodia-related books, which brings the total to 5 books in "Further reading" - Done
    • All issues now resolved. Squash 08:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Great, support now. Jeronimo 10:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Some more objections are on the article Talk page. ;) Mark¹ 09:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Replies on that very talk page... Squash 09:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There's also some minor grammar and spelling issues (i.e. "Khmer Rogue"). History section has virtually nothing after the fall of the Khmer Rouge. The Government and Politics section misses content on Government entirely. What's left in the politics section is more to do with recent events - it does little to describe the political situation in the country. The new Politics section is much improved, but I don't think mangling the two topics helps - there's room for a quite seperate distinction in this case, and doing it this way makes for badly flowing prose. I also don't like the "Political figures that have changed Cambodian history in one way" section - it's POV and awkward. The Provinces section could do with a little expansion and cleaning up, and Geography could also do with a minor copyedit. There's spelling and grammar issues in the Economy section. The tourism information in there says it was affected by September 11, but has no further details. Generally, the economy section could do with a copyedit too, as could most of the article (things like the occasional missing or excess "the"). The economy section is now much improved, but starting it off by discussing the recent changes is a little odd. Starting off the culture section by talking about its influence on Thailand is a wee bit strange, and some of the rest of that section is badly worded and could do with a cite. The transportation speaks about the rail lines in the past tense, but doesn't say what happened to them. The foreign relations section is decent initially, but then focuses a bit too much on recent events. The Tourism section needs a particularly good copyedit. I also suspect that far more references were used in writing this than are currently listed there. That said, despite all these criticisms, this is well on the way. Ambi 06:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: How is it possible to expand the provinces section, if almost (if not) all the other country articles are just merely a list of provinces. Some of the other issues have seem to be fixed by other people. Squash 08:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Some things have been addressed (thanks to whoever did that - it's much improved!), but there's still quite a lot remaining, and I've added a couple of changed ones. As to the provinces, I just think a little bit of a format wouldn't go astray - that section is a bit ugly. Ambi 11:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I've tried to clarify what was happening during the 1980s; spelling and grammar (I hope) are all fixed; 911, it turns out was a red herring- I've updated that and tried to put the economy and culture sections into a more coherent shape; transportation has been updated; foreign relations updated and the recent events trimmed; references added for the content which I've added. Mark¹ 06:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • This has improved so much since it was nominated - kudos to both of you. Would it be possible to fix the history section? It really needs some more post-1975 information - that's a big hole at the moment. Once that's done, I'll gladly support, as the other remaining issues are minor. Ambi 12:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Ambi, I'll be glad to help but I don't think I should bloat the article any further since the History is already big enough as it already is. There are links in the Related topics template which lead to History of Cambodia (1979-present). The 3 history sections are enough to cover as it is. Squash 21:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Fully support! Conditional support, once the public domain images have been shifted to commons and added to the Cambodia image gallery. Excellent article, I just wish there was more print references! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons: Cambodia - Done Squash 08:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work :-) Ta bu shi da yu 08:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I think we're done. (Still object as above, but) I'm optimistic of having this knocked into shape before the end of this week, so it would be nice to hold off a decision on the candidacy until then. Mark¹ 09:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Great job! Squash 09:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. 172 02:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Very close to support. The Khmer Rouge section has a picture of Pol Pot and links to his article, but never explains who he is or what relation he has to that material. Well, the caption does, but the text should too, to make it clearer. A tiny bit more about him should be covered there. - Taxman 16:04, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • A tiny bit added, one brief sentence but informative sentence - Done Squash 00:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)