Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indonesia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:07, 1 June 2007.

[edit] Indonesia

previous fac
  • Self nomination Comprehensive but succinct, numerous references to reliable sources, it's gone through major collaborative processess, several peer reviews, it has Good Article status, is factually accurate and the world's fourth largest country. Perhaps this could even be the Wikipedia Feature Article on 17 August - Indonesia's national day. --Merbabu 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support- I support the nomination reason due to it having over 123 references. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent and well-sourced article. --Carioca 18:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is already of high quality. It would benefit from an additional copyedit, but it is fundamentally sound. -Arch dude 03:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - fulfils criteria. congrats. great looking article cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, but a bit bias as a contributor. The article has undergone major improvement and is provided with reliable sources. Though the article size is quite large, but the content is concise with compeling prose to describe necessary aspects for any readers to understand about Indonesia. It would be very beneficial to all of us if this vital article can gain FA status. — Indon (reply) — 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support fulfills all reqs, well written. Lεmσηflαsh(t)/(c) 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I disagree with the previous reviewer's assessment of the writing. Here are examples just from the lead that indicate that the entire text needs a good massage by fresh eyes.
    • "since at least the seventh century when Srivijaya Kingdom traded with China." Comma before "when", and "the" before "Srivijava".
    • "drawn to its wealth of natural resources; including Indians, under whose influence Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms flourished"—semicolon should be a comma, or make it "resources; these powers include ...".
    • "Europeans fighting for monopolization of the spice trade"—I'm sure they weren't fighting for the spice trade to be monopolised by anyone. Each wanted to monopolise it themselves. The grammar indicates the former.
    • A Dutch colonial presence existed"—awkward; try "There was a Dutch colonial presence" (but that's a mild statement, implying relatively weak power; if you mean "Indonesia was a Dutch colony for more than three centuries, say it).Tony 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The entire Indonesia was not a Dutch colony for 300 years, in fact, much of it wasn't - to say so is factually inaccurate. The final borders were not established until the early 20th century. Furthermore, Dutch control, where it did control, was often tenuous. In fact, where this point comes up twice in the text it has a footnote to explain. It's a shame it's not a simpler concept and we have struggled with the best way to say it. Any suggestions are welcome.Merbabu 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC) So use ""There was a Dutch colonial presence", as I suggested; that's weak enough. Tony
        • Oh yeah - sounds good. thanks. Merbabu 01:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
          • ON second thoughts, it is weak. But leads are problematic trying to simplisticly sum up 350 years of history in 1/2 sentence. needs more thought possibly but I will make the change.Merbabu 02:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Indonesia's post-independence history has been turbulent with elements of separatism and corruption, periods of rapid economic growth and decline,...". Comma before "with", please, in a formal register such as this. Makes it easier to read. Audit the whole article for the non-use of commas.
    • "Indonesia is a unitary state consisting of numerous distinct ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups spread across its numerous islands that have not always been united." We have "numerous" twice. Remove "spread". What has not always been united? The groups or the islands?

In addition to 1a, I find a POV problem (1d) in the absence of any mention in the lead about the long history of domination of the archipelago by the Javanese. Tony 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The grammar can be fixed. How would you suggest we solve the apparent POV problem? It could be easily be made worse by saying "long history of domination by the Javanese". Merbabu 01:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a milder statement? Long history of cultural and economic ascendancy? Or even "influence", although that might be too mild. You need to debate that among yourselves; I have no expertise in that matter, but have heard from authoritative sources that it is the case.
When you say "the grammar can be fixed", it's not only grammar, but a number of issues, including redundant wording and punctuation; and not just in the lead, but throughout. Can you find a native speaker with an interest in SEA? Research FA edit history pages to find edit summaries indicating copy-editing. Flatter anyone you find, because they will be valuable collaborators now and in the future. I suppose my conern is that the topic deserves the respect and authority that can only come from polished prose.
There's an apparent breach of protocol here: Arch dude has a raft of edits, yet has not announced his/her contributions, as Indon has done. It's a matter of being open about potential conflicts of interest. Tony 01:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - regarding arch dude, he made those edits after we requested he elaborate on his comments here at FAC. I'm working on the Javanese dominanace now and will reply latr. Yes, it is easy to get too close to material, but the problem we have had with people 'outsiders' copyediting is that they bring in factual errors - but, it does need to be collaborative accuracy/prose process, to which Arch Duke, for example, helped us with. thanks. Merbabu 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose on image issues. No fair use rationale on Image:Indonesian Rupiah.jpg. Image:Istiqlal.jpg is a copyvio. Image:Map Indonesian religions.jpg has no information provided supporting that the UNDP owns the image, that they gave proper permission (not that this matters anyway since we cannot use images with permission) or that they put it into the public domain. Otherwise, culture doesn't mention sports and games that are popular in the country.--Peta 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - actually, the culture section does mention that soccer and badminton are popular. It also mentions Pencak silat a traditional martial art. I will look into the pics. many thanks. Merbabu 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I too am a biased contributor and am inclined to support the nomination, well done to everyone who has contributed! There are still however aspects where the article can be improved:
  • "[Indonesia] has been an important trade region since at least the seventh century when Srivijaya Kingdom traded with China". The qualification about China doesn't make sense to me given that the article later makes the statement - "The region established trade with both India and China several centuries BCE.". China isn't the only region Srivijaya traded with, so as it stands the sentence is misleading. The citation goes into a lot of detail about the trade Srivijaya had with China, but that is likely because most of surviving records of the time are Chinese.
I don't quite understand the problem here. The information is reliably sourced. It is significant that there were trade links with China - but that doesn't mean we should list all of Srivijaya's trade links (even if they were actually known). Anyway, it has since been changed:
The Indonesian archipelago has been an important trade region since at least the seventh century, when the Srivijaya Kingdom formed trade links with China.
--Merbabu 02:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "poverty and unequal distribution of wealth are defining features of contemporary Indonesia". I agree with the poverty aspect of this claim, but the unequal distribution of wealth aspect doesn't seem to be supported by the citation, nor emperical data such as List of countries by income equality. According to the UN, Indonesia has a more equal income distribution than Australia, New Zealand, the UK, USA, Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and so on.
      • Comment if the statistics don't back up the inequality of wealth claim, then it can be removed. Done. :) Merbabu 03:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment - although I also endorse (and made) the above-suggested change in accordance with statistics, the 'inequality' referred to the vast gap between the top and bottom. THe fact that so many people (the vast majority) are indeed near the bottom implies equality (ie, equally poor) with a small but extremely wealthy upper class, but a very small middle class - unlike, say, Australia which has a very large middle class. Of course though, we need to go with what's verifiable before 'the truth'. Merbabu 05:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Etymology seems seems overly large. I'd like to see the overbearing quote replaced with a picture representing the island nature of the country as per the etymology of Indonesia - some coastline and water for example.
  • I really don't know on this one. Yes, other input sorely needed - but I have made your suggested change anyway. Here is the section before and updated with pic instead. Comments? Merbabu 05:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Administrative divisions" section is an aspect of the governement and politics of Indonesia. As such I believe it is more logical to include it as a subsection of the "Government and politics" rather than its own top level header. The Encarta encyclopedia for example has a similar organization - "Introduction; Land and Resources; The People of Indonesia; Arts and Culture; Economy; Government; History". I know Merbabu prefers the existing structure, but I'd like to hear what others think.
My proposed header structure is:
3 Government and politics
3.1 Structure and affiliations
3.2 Administrative divisions
3.3 Foreign relations
3.4 Contemporary issues
Instead of:
3 Government and politics
3.1 Structure and affiliations
3.2 Foreign relations
3.3 Contemporary issues
4 Administrative divisions
4.1 Indonesian provinces and their capitals
Comment while there is some logic to the way you have presented your structure here - ie, under one single section - in practise, it makes the section too long and it looks unwieldy and clumsy. Looking at all the FA country articles, they too would have this size problem and thus, these four division are not presented as one single section (with subsections), rather they are always presented as two or more sections - with subsections as required. That's my view on it anyway. Merbabu 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The paragraph on Chinese Indonesians takes up 40% of the Ethnic groups section, which feels like it's given too much weight - should probably be trimmed a little. Also, the first sentence contains weasle words - "Chinese Indonesians are arguably the most influential ethnic minority".
  • Good points re Chinese Indonesians - I have addressed them - please check if i have done so adequately. PS, there was a comment about anti-Chinese violence that was in the footnotes, but I've put it now into the main prose as it is important. maybe wording could be reviewed. thanks. Merbabu 04:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(Caniago 03:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Oppose. I agree with Tony on the need for a thorough copy edit; there's a lot of redundancy, common misspellings, and other errors. For example, the serial comma is used in some places but not others, and Commonwealth and American English are used willy-nilly. Further concerns:
    • Although prose size is acceptable (31 KB of readable prose), the Table of Contents is large and imposing. There is no need for sub-subheads like "Executive" and "Parliament" that introduce one- or two-paragraph sections, for example.
      • Comment - I have removed the sub-sub headings, and even the new sub-headings in the govt section. It's set-out is now similar to most other country articles (including the FA countries :) ). --Merbabu 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Inline citations should be removed from the lead. The lead should not give any new information that is not repeated in the body of the article, so the inline citations should be in the body instead.
      • Done --Merbabu 16:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Contemporary issues" is a problematic section. It seems like a dumping ground for anything negative about the country. A better approach would be to distribute these facts throughout the article. For example, the information on poverty would fit well under "Demographics" or "Economy". Information on separtatist conflicts would fit with information about the military (as it represents one of the threats to which the military responds).
      • Comment - OK, i've merged it into 'Economy' and a couple of re-arranged govt related sections. This version. And I've removed the associated sub-sections/headings. The section was a way to handle accusations of NPOV and glossing over of issues which has been a common accusation of not just this article but Indonesia in general. But, you are right - it did have a 'sore thumb' look to it. Merbabu 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Further comment - I've removed the sub-headings from the 'Demographics' section and trimmed down the religion paragraph. Merbabu 05:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The massive "Further reading" section should be scrapped. List just the sources that were actually used to write the article, and place them under "References".
      • Comment. Oh dear. That's a great part. Are you sure? (although, just to confirm, everything actually used is in references)Merbabu 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Done - i removed it a few days ago. Merbabu 14:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The biggest fish to fry at this point is the prose, though. — Brian (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes indeed. Merbabu 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the quick responses. I'll check the changes over this weekend sometime. The "Further reading" thing isn't an FAC killer to me, but I do really hate "Further reading" sections in Wikipedia articles. If something is important enough to merit mention, it should have been used as a proper reference. I also prefer that full-form references be given in a separate section that lists all references alphabetized by author's last name (as I did in Cameroon). This allows the "Notes" to be much more abbreviated and improves the reader's ability to scan all of the sources used and to determine if they are reliable or not. But that's just my personal style, I admit. — Brian (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I've struck (stricken?) two objections, by the way. — Brian (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Further note: I copy edited the article, but problems still remain. Namely, I did not try to fix the inconsistent use of the serial comma nor the flip-flopping between Commonwealth and American English. The article's main editors will have to decide which style they prefer and make these changes themselves.
        • Comment: I am sure American English was the accepted way (unfortunately - he he) and I thought I had checked already for that. I will have a closer look hopefully tomorrow. But what words are still causing concern? Merbabu 13:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • A few other points:
        • "murdered under contentious circumstances" -- Can this be reworded? When is a murder not contentious?
          • Done. I've changed this to 'disputed circumstances but I think this is not quite right. Perhaps someonce can suggest further. It is the circumstances around the murders (ie, who was the 'mastermind') that are contentious/contreversial. Ie, no accounts of who was behind it can be proven, including the official version. On the other hand, there was no big national 'dispute'. The army had their version and being the victors, it was their version that became the official line - any dispute (ie, 'contention') has been behind the scenes, and now amongst overseas historians/academics. It is not a big issue in Indonesia as the official version has become so ingrained.Merbabu 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Can we have a source citation for the five largest cities?
        • Please insert non-breaking spaces between all numbers and units of measurement. And please be sure that both metric and Imperial measures are given (mostly the article is good about this, but there is at least one spot I noticed where metric only was given).
        • Please replace all - characters with n-dashes for ranges of numbers or dates.
        • The first two sentences of the second paragraph of "Demographics" are confusing to me. Are "Austronesian" and "Melanesian" considered ethnic groups? Or are these larger groupings? The "However" in the second sentence makes it sound like they are ethnic groups.
          • Done Yeah - i can see the problem. Now changed to:
Most Indonesians are descendant from Austronesian-speaking people who originated in Taiwan. The other major grouping are Melanesians who inhabit eastern Indonesia.[97] There are around 300 distinct native ethnicities in Indonesia and 742 different languages and dialects.[98] Merbabu 14:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • "Though now minority religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and classical India remain defining . . . " Classical India is not a religion, but I wasn't sure how to reword this.
          • Done I've changed this to: Though now minority religions, Hinduism and Buddhism remain defining influences in Indonesian culture. [2] Merbabu 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The article seems to be overlinked. Please take a long, hard look at each and every bluelink and make sure it is relevant to the article. For example, little is gained by linking to terms such as earthquake and Brazil.
          • Done - two editors have gone through the whole article closely. We think we have got it covered, what do you think? Some are linked twice but only in a few instances where it seems useful and never in the same section. Merbabu 08:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • On a related note, please click through every link and make sure it goes where it's supposed to. Featured Articles should not point to redirect and disambiguation pages.
          • Done I've cast a careful eye over the article and it seems fine. Merbabu 15:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Wow, citation templates made this piece a headache to edit! (Just a comment!)
          • You're telling me!?! Well, articles are first and foremost for the benefit of readers, not editors and intend to provide quality info rather than ease of editing. :) Merbabu 13:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If these issues can be cleared up, I think the article will be ready for my support. — Brian (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Support; changing from oppose. Good work to Merbabu and the others; this has shaped up into a fine article! — Brian (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is going to be a touchy point: I'm glad to see that the "liberal democracy" claim has vanished from the opening. However, a balanced view of Indonesia's politics, government, administration, economics and, indeed, the lives of its citizens, is not possible without mention of the endemic corruption that has beset and continues to beset the country. It was recently rated (by which international body, I can't recall) as one of the top few nations in the world (or the top one?) for corruption. Yet a rather bland picture is painted of the way public life works in Indonesia. I think this issue needs to be aired somewhere in the article. It's a POV issue (1c). Tony 09:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

PS Specify "nominal" GDP, against the PPP per capita. And what's the nominal per capita income? (It's important because it's an indication of the tradeable-goods purchasing power of Indonesians.) Tony 09:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Corruption is mentioned in three places in the article - the intro, History and in Economy. Are you suggesting it needs to be made more prominent or otherwise reworded? (Caniago 09:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
I've added in nominal GDP/capita alongside the PPP figure. I've also updated, for 2006, these two plus total GDP. And what is nominal per capita income? Isn't GDP/capita simply a way of measuring income/capita? see here. And PPP means an attempt to takes into account the 'purchasing power'. It's not clear what you mean. Merbabu 14:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I've now added a sentence into the Economy section on corruption, Transparency International and their Corruption Perceptions Index. Merbabu 14:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arbitary break (for ease of use)

  • Oppose. --

1. Mos for units (m, mi, km, C not followed) -- see formatting for Climate of India.

Done - i think. Most issues seemed to be in the 'Geography' section.[3]. One thing i did not change was the use of "%" rather than "per cent" or "percent" - I have kept it consistent with FA countries

2. Image sizes are inconsistent, try thumbing the images, removing the set pixel.

Yes, should be consistent and I've reviewed all pics. I'm not sure that we must simply use thumbnail size as a matter of course. 220px horizontal is a good size in my opinion for landscape - not too big - although 200px could be good. Note, there is one portrait I set to 180px which means the area is on par with the landscape - i don't think portrait size pics should have the same size horizontal as a landscape, as the vertical would thus be excessive. Let me know what you think and if it needs further adjustment. --Merbabu 05:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Many words linked repeatedly.

Done --Merbabu 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The MOS says regarding internal links: These links should be included where it is most likely that a reader would want to follow them elsewhere; for example, in article introductions, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.. So, repeated links are fine (and in fact encouraged) as long as they are not repeated in the same section. (Caniago 15:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

4. {{tl|main}] should come before an image in a section.

Done I found two instances [4] & [5] Merbabu 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

5. It's interesting that Indonesia shares a sea border with Australia, but not India. Considering that the northern tip of Aceh is 140 odd km from Indira Point in the Nicobar Islands, what would be the basis for the omission?

Done I've re-written this in line with the FA Australia article:
The country shares land borders with Papua New Guinea, East Timor, and Malaysia, and other neighboring countries include Singapore, the Philippines, Australia and the Indian union territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
To put in India as a neighbour because Aceh is close to the Nicobars is, in my opinion, dwelling to much on a relatively small technicality. It could be a bit misleading - 'most' of India is not really a neighbour and we need to draw the line somewhere. But, I have put it in for now and I think other opinion would be helpful. :) --Merbabu 06:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

6. (not an oppose) Maps should be SVG
7. ...these include Indians... -- inaccuracte; India was not a unified country back then; "Indian kingdoms" would be more accurate.

Done. --Merbabu 03:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

8. (check possessive noun) Earl's --> Earl Done I corrected this instance and checked every example of "'s" --Merbabu 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC) 9. Wikify dates --> 21 May 1998

Done - i went through and checked all - corrected 3 instances in references. But couldn't find any probs in main article body. --Merbabu 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


10. "Significant" separatist? -- Why not just Separatist?

Done - yeah, good point. --Merbabu 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

11. 'have led to armed conflict and allegations -- not clear which side (IND or the separatists) is alleged to be behind these. Is there a co-relation between the two? I don't think so

Comment - actually, it is intended to mean 'both ways' - part of the propaganda war on both 'sides'. No doubt much is true, and much is exageration, even fabrication - from both sides. To say 'There have been allegations of HR abuses' is a factual comment, on the other hand, saying 'There have been HR abuses' adds a bit grease to the POV slope - no matter that there is no doubt substantial truth in it. Merbabu 04:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Done - I've added a few more words that will hopefully clarify. Hopefully people can review and improve/suggest as appropriate. I've also added more referneces. The main point is that we are talking about violent armed conflict, ie - claim and counter claim about brutality are thus hardly unusual. But, your point is a good one and I hope it has now lead to article improvement.Merbabu 04:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please fix and let me know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Review 2: Most of it are done, thanks, so here's part 2:

  • For SVG maps, submit a request to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. They should take care of it on a priority basis.
  • I checked again and noticed that images still precede the main link. Images are part of the section body. The body begins after main, so images should come after it, never before.
Done (Caniago 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Regarding the sea neighbours: I think the cut off you mention should be the internationally accepted 200 nautical miles.
  • Units are not formated as per the WP:MoS. There should be a non-breaking space between a unit and number. Use the {{convert}} template for automatic simple conversions. -- That's why I referred you to Climate of India. PS This (26 to 30 °Celsius (79 to 86 °F) is incorrectly formatted and the way of mentioning it is: 26 °C to 30 °C (79 °F to 86 °F) -- I've used ALT+160 for the non-breaking space instead of the HTML entity  
Done. Regarding the °C °F issue the range has been replaced by en-dashes, which is the same as the climate article you cite. (Caniago 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
  • square kilometers vs sq km -- both are fine; MoS recommends that it is spelled out the first time.
  • About the image sizes: MoS says that it should be without a set pixel value. Those with high res monitors find the images too tiny. [[image:abc.jpg|thumb|Caption]]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Done with two exceptions; as 'thumbing' pics makes only the horizontal size uniform, the two portrait shape pics in 'History' seem way oversize without setting pixel size. Merbabu 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Needs a ref for the national ideology.CG 12:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Done - I've given one on-line reference and one from a book. Merbabu 13:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Great! Didn't expect such a fast response. CG 13:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Many of the figures in the country Infobox don't match the text: GDP, area and population density for example. (Caniago 12:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment - Done for the area and density based on the text, since it has valid citations, I'm currently re-checking the GDP. Imoeng 08:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • GDP Done - they were a mix of nominal and PPP values. Now, both values are added (for better or worse). Merbabu 12:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - A bit biased as one of the contributors, but the article has gone though many improvements since the last FAC. Worth for FA, that is for sure. Imoeng 07:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments -- spent a little more time to review after prodding by the nominator so here goes:
1. ...was inhabited by 500,000 to two million years ago -- reads odd. And why not 2 million to 500,000 years (reverse)? We always count from the early dates in time to the nearer dates in time.

Done [6] Merbabu 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Dutch rule ended with the Japanese occupation during World War II. -- Two problems with this sentence. 1. The sentence is choppy, it does not flow with the preceding and following one. 2. it contradicts the fact that Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands. So, who ruled Indonesia between 1945 to 49?

hmmmm - to answer the first part, I can accept if wording can be improved, and I have tried to improve it by expanding it and linking it to the previous sentence (see below). But I must disagree with you on the second part. This is not a 'black and white', 'on/off' peice of history, but we have limited words. Furthermore, rather than simply focus on one sentence in isolation, if we read the whole paragraph that deals with the watershed period of Indonesian history (1942 to 1950), it is factually accurate and not contradictory (section below includes my update and could be reworded for 'prose' but not 'accuracy')...
For most of the colonial period, Dutch control over these territories was tenuous; only in the early 20th century did Dutch dominance extend to what was to become Indonesia's current boundaries.[20] However, Dutch rule ended with the Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation during World War II.[21] Sukarno, an influential nationalist leader, cooperated with the Japanese in an attempt to bolster the independence movement.[22] On 17 August 1945, two days after the Japanese surrender, Sukarno unilaterally declared Indonesian independence.[23] He was declared the president and Muhammad Hatta the vice-president.[24] A bitter armed and diplomatic struggle against the Netherlands ended in December 1949, when in the face of international pressure, the Dutch formally recognized Indonesian independence.[25]
Indeed, one paragraph is simply not enough, but that is all we have in a summary country article. perhaps look at the linked Japanese Occupation of Indonesia (end of Dutch rule, dismantling of {European} colonial system and politisation of Indonesia, which together enabled independence movement), and Indonesian National Revolution for the 45-50 period. I completely re-wrote this latter article from a number of sources so I feel reasonably qualifed to (politely!) suggest that saying "it contradicts the fact that Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands. So, who ruled Indonesia between 1945 to 49? " misses much of the point and over-simplifies history such that it is completely misleading. But, i can always accept if it can be re-worded to improve prose and clarity, but I can't see the accuracy problem. kind regards Merbabu 00:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


3. 17 August 1945 -- wikify!!!

Done [7] Merbabu 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

4. maneuvered himself into the presidency. -- why the Euphemism? why not mention that he overthrew the incubent Sukarno?

It was not intended as a euphemism, rather that it how the events unfolded over time. But I've changed it to Politically, Suharto capitalized on Sukarno's gravely weakened position; in a drawn-out power play between the two, Suharto maneuvered himself into the presidency by March 1967. Merbabu 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it again: I removed 'maneuvered' - although this describes succintly and accurately what happened at the time, it is clearly causing some readibility issues. :) It now reads:
Politically, Suharto capitalized on Sukarno's gravely weakened position; following a drawn-out power play with Sukarno, Suharto was formally appointed president in March 1968.
Merbabu 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

5. However, in 1997 and 1998, -- don't start a paragraph with 'However'

Done [8] Merbabu 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

6. soccer --> football (soccer) -- I don't suppose it is called soccer in Indonesia. Liga Indonesia could be mentioned.

DoneMerbabu 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

7. Sports seemed to be toned down. Culture of Indonesia has a few indigenous sports that could be added as a sentence. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done I've added a bit: [9]:
The most popular sports in Indonesia are badminton and football; Liga Indonesia is the country's premier football club league. Traditional sports include sepak takraw, and bull racing in Madura. In areas with a history of tribal warfare, mock fighting contests are held, such as, caci in Flores, and pasola in Sumba. Pencak Silat is an Indonesian martial art. Sports in Indonesia are genenerally male-orientated and spectator sports are often associated with illegal gambling.
Merbabu 00:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The sentences around independence and WW2 are still not clear. Suggest a further rewording. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As I explained above regarding this specific request, I'm not about to make requested inaccurate changes to history merely for some subjective notion of prose or clarity. Nor do i suggest a re-hash of the Japanese Occupation of Indonesia or Indonesian National Revolution articles - I suggest some degree of brevity - it already has a whole paragraph. We can't put 101 finer points into 100 words. Thus, please identify which part specifically is not clear and I will see what I can do...
For most of the colonial period, Dutch control over these territories was tenuous; only in the early 20th century did Dutch dominance extend to what was to become Indonesia's current boundaries.[20] However, Dutch rule ended with the Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation during World War II.[21] Sukarno, an influential nationalist leader, cooperated with the Japanese in an attempt to bolster the independence movement.[22] On 17 August 1945, two days after the Japanese surrender, Sukarno unilaterally declared Indonesian independence.[23] He was declared the president and Muhammad Hatta the vice-president.[24] A bitter armed and diplomatic struggle against the Netherlands ended in December 1949, when in the face of international pressure, the Dutch formally recognized Indonesian independence.[25]
--Merbabu 14:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good summary, but I have a suggested reword: The Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation in during WWII effectively ended Dutch colonial rule. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Sukarno, an influential nationalist leader, was made the president, and unilaterally declared independence. A bitter armed and diplomatic struggle against the Netherlands ended in December 1949, when, in the face of mounting international pressure, the Dutch formally recognized Indonesian independence.

Let me know if this fits the bill. It's even shorter that the present text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

ah - brevity is the best. :) Thanks. A great way forward - i will tweak it a tiny tiny bit (Sukarno was appointed president a day or two after his declaration) and I threw in a bit about the Japanese nuturing the indepenence movement (which really deserves a whole article).
The Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation during WWII effectively ended Dutch colonial rule, and encouraged the Indonesian independence movement. After the surrender of Japan in 1945, Sukarno, an influential nationalist leader, declared independence, and was appointed President. A bitter armed and diplomatic struggle against the Netherlands ended in December 1949, when, in the face of international pressure, the Dutch formally recognized Indonesian independence. Merbabu 14:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems ok. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I've changed the admin division map back to the plain map rather than the map overlayed with province hyperlink labels. The hyperlinked map looks really bad on my system, with different problems depending upon which browser I use. With Firefox the (see screenshot [10]) the labels merge and become incomprehensible. With IE (see screenshot [11]) the map is overwhelmingly large, forcing the text in the section into a very narrow column. Either way, the map looks very strange in the context of the article and the size and layout we have used for the rest of the images. The Indonesia map in the geography section has the standard image size, so why should the map in the admin division be treated differently and emphasized by increasing its size? Also, the labels on the map already duplicate the complete listing of provinces already contained in the text. Are the provinces really so important we need to repeat the information twice in the article and cause presentation problems with the article in some people's web browsers? (Caniago 07:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
Comment - I think the problems are being overstated and use of this pic is by no means unsalvagable. You are correct, we do not need a map and the list - thus, scrap the list as it doesn't go anywhere near the useability-at-once-glance. As for your screenshots, the first is not incomprehensible - just a little messy and can be fixed no doubt. The second (firefox) is exactly how I see it and I think it looks outstanding. Yet another reason to use firefox and not IE. Look at Australia, United States, for example. Brilliance. Why does style have to win over 'usefulness'? Merbabu 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Australia has six states and 2 territories. The map on that article is quite a bit smaller yet its still comprehensible, even on my system. Indonesia has 33 provinces, quite a big difference. Even with the map set at the very large size it was, its still a mess. The eastern half of the USA map has the same problems as the Indonesia one. I doubt it can be fixed without making the font size unreadibly small. What the people adding these maps to articles don't seem to realize is that you can't take the font size of people's web browsers for granted. People with reading difficulties will set their browsers to have a large font size which will also cause problems. One of the advantages of the province list is that we have the capitals also listed, so I wouldn't like to see it go. BTW, the second image you say looks like your system is actually from IE not Firefox. (Caniago 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
I suggest you ask User:Indon, the creator for an svg map with labels. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support This article is easy to read, highly informative, and very pleasing to the eye. It also does an excellent job of handling the the two great challenges of any article on a country, which are to ballance the treatment of all the different topics (history, politics, culture, economics, geography, natural history) appropriately, and to treat political and historic issues in way that is NPOV but still informative. As far as one of the issues raised in previous comments. I have not seen the version of the pronvincal map with the links to the provinces on it, but I would strongly suggest against removing the list of provinces that is currently in the article. That list is attractive, well organized, and easy to navigate. I have a hard time believing a map with links would be nearly as easy to navigate. I might suggest making the existing provincal map larger rather than thumbnail size so that the provincal names on it were readable without expanding it. That way it would be easier to use the list and the map in conjunction with one another. However, this is not a major point.Rusty Cashman 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.