Jangan Takut! Anda tidak perlu takut salah ketika membuat atau menyunting halaman baru, menambahkan atau menghapus kalimat. Para Pengurus dan pengguna lainnya akan dengan senang hati membantu memperbaiki atau mengembalikannya.
Welcome! If you are not an Indonesian speaker, you may want to visit the Indonesian Wikipedia Embassy or a slight info to find users speaking your language. We're so glad you're here! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes ( ~~~~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Happy Editing!
@Kwamikagami Umm, did you mean that you had forgot your native language, Bahasa Indonesia? Well, in that case, you can use English instead. Do you mind if I ask here? I am neither advanced, near-native, nor proficiency at English (probably I am still intermediate) actually. Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 17 September 2022 11.05 (UTC)Balas
Asking here is fine.
No, my native language is English. I spent a little time in Malaysia and Indonesia, enough to hold a conversation, but that was years ago. Could write in Javanese script, but sadly that's all forgotten.
Hello. @Kwamikagami. It is good to see you again. I hope to learn how to create an article, particularly for GA and FA. During at WP:GA, I was wondering if I can make a GA, but I have no idea how to do it. Any tips (especially for improving the article to become GA, which end up reverted)? There are some reasons I am requesting, and one of my reasons is you had nominated three featured articles and four good articles, although one of them has been delisted.
Aside from writing skills, I had no idea between GA and FA, although they both have pretty similar structures, in my opinion. However, I cannot see the difference in particular. Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 11 November 2022 04.51 (UTC)Balas
FA is a higher standard that GA. GA means that the article is accurate and well-sourced. FA means that it is encyclopedia quality. As for how to do it, all I do is follow the guidelines, nominate it for GA or FA, and then follow the suggestions of the reviewers to improve it further. Every time is different, and I often don't know what to expect. It's a lot of work, and probably not something I will do again. Kwamikagami (bicara) 11 November 2022 06.21 (UTC)Balas
@Kwamikagami Thanks a lot for clarifying, but I was confused about "encyclopedia quality" means. Does that means an article must meet all guidelines and policy in Wikipedia? Aside from meeting the FA and GA criteria (and the suggestion of the reviewers), the other problem before I go ahead to write an article is that I had no idea about finding the sources. Relatedly, there are a lot of guidelines that must obey in Wikipedia English; unlike here. Maybe you can give some suggestions. Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 11 November 2022 07.10 (UTC)Balas
By "encyclopedia quality", I mean something that the Encyclopedia Britannica might put in print. That is, FA is a professionally written article. GA is more like a newspaper article. It's good enough, there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not the best we can do.
For sources -- your local library, Google books, Library Genesis (libgen.rs) or its archive Z-Library (https://z-lib.org), Internet Archive Scholar, etc. For Indonesian topics, the best sources may be in your local library. Sources don't need to be in English, and they don't have to be accessible to someone in the US or UK, but they do need to be verifiable. E.g. if you get a book from a city or university library in Yogya, then someone else in Yogya should be able to verify from the same book (assuming they can read Javanese or whichever language the book is written in).
@Kwamikagami Thank you so much. If I want to create an article, or improve to become a high standard class level, do I have to request to WikiProject? I would like to help improving, but I have to make sure that their already in agreement. If they disagree, I probably cannot. Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 11 November 2022 07.46 (UTC)Balas
1. Make the article as good as you can, following the criteria for a GA.
2. Nominate it for GA.
3. Wait. There's a backlog of articles nominated for GA, and it may take a while (weeks, maybe even months) for someone to start a review of yours.
4. Review. The reviewers will comment on where the article meets GA requirements are where it fails. You will be able to correct the parts where it fails. There will almost certainly be some things you need to fix. You should have weeks or even months to fix any problems. You might say, "I tried to address issue 'A'. How is that?" and they might say, "that's good" or "there are still problems", and you can discuss what those problems are. You will be able to discuss each point with them. And, even if one reviewer doesn't like something, the other reviewers might find it acceptable, so that doesn't mean your article will fail GA. There's no veto: the article passes or fails based on the consensus of the reviewers.
5. Pass/fail. If the reviewers are satisfied that you've met the requirements, they will make your article GA. If not, they will tell you why, and if you still want to, you can try to correct those problems and nominate the article again. Kwamikagami (bicara) 11 November 2022 09.00 (UTC)Balas
@Kwamikagami, wait a minute, I already read this before, but I should read it again. After I read it again, should the nominator must understand the topic, or if the user didn't understand about it can ask to user who write (or could possibly to expert GA writer), per the sentence Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article must consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination.?
I am truly sorry if I had to ask this multiple times, since the GA system here is actually quite different than GA in English, and I am not quite sure if I can make it. I was tremendously chaotic before I prepared the sources. Should I write in the sandbox first? Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 11 November 2022 10.25 (UTC)Balas
If your changes are controversial, you might want to use the sandbox. But if they're clear improvements (adding sources, balancing POVs, expanding coverage, etc.), then you can go ahead and edit the article. Those are things that should be done even if you don't nominate it for GA.
What that quote means is that, if you are one of the authors of the article, or if you're the one who recently improved it (that is, you're following the instructions above), you can nominate it for GA. However, if you're not one of the authors -- if you just come across an article and think, "that should be a GA" but didn't improve it yourself, then you shouldn't nominate it until you check with the authors. They might have other plans for it. Kwamikagami (bicara) 11 November 2022 18.47 (UTC)Balas
Hi. I would like to ask again, since it is related to this topic. I wonder why the system of GA reviewing (and nominating) are totally different than other Wikipedia, such as WBI (Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia), in here, where the GA could only be obtained by three vote support, or literally agree, and the FA could only at least one reviewer? For some reason, IMO, WE (Wikipedia English) has a somewhat unique system. Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 17 Januari 2023 14.03 (UTC)Balas
I'm not familiar with GA or FA on other wikis. On WP-en, you can nominate your own articles. Whether anyone will vote for GA or FA is another question, of course. Kwamikagami (bicara) 17 Januari 2023 17.48 (UTC)Balas
Hello, @Kwamikagami. I am truly sorry for asking you here, again. I would liek to ask, is there a policy—in English Wikipedia— that explain the prohibition of asking someone to finish one's work without noticing what one's doing? I thought it was WP:CANVASSING which mentioned it at the beginning, but I don't think it is. If you still didn't understand it, you can ask me for clarifying. Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 30 November 2022 05.57 (UTC)Balas
You can of course ask someone to finish your work for you. There's nothing inappropriate about that. But I don't understand what you mean by "without noticing what one's doing." Kwamikagami (bicara) 30 November 2022 06.04 (UTC)Balas
Maybe I can clarify what I meant that phrase. So, if you look at my latest contribution, I was reviewing the article. You can see that at Talk:Triaugmented triangular prism/GA1. At the beginning, I was trying to give some minor comments, but after the next day I use my sandbox to translate. However, the big issue is that I asking some comments, relating to the translation and meaning as well. I can confirm what I did it was wrong.
I was trying to figure out the policy which related to this case, but I have no idea where it is. I can only think it is related to WP:CANVASSING. Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 30 November 2022 06.21 (UTC)Balas
I don't see anything you did that violated policy. The problem seems to be that you don't understand some of the English, which makes it difficult for you to evaluate the article. Whether people will accept your review or reject it I don't know, but there's no policy violation that I see. Kwamikagami (bicara) 30 November 2022 06.28 (UTC)Balas
I don't know which edits you're referring to, or where. But it's an editorial decision how much detail to include in a summary and what to leave for the main article. If you think the summary is excessive, it's fine to trim it down. Kwamikagami (bicara) 9 Desember 2022 20.26 (UTC)Balas
I'm not sure I understand. You wouldn't delete 'citation needed' tags unless you provide a citation, and the other edit reads as an improvement IMO. Kwamikagami (bicara) 10 Desember 2022 01.07 (UTC)Balas
Do I have to report this to GA author? I am not sure if it's appropriate to add citation needed in the lead, and some copyedit minor in the body article as well. IMO, it is already explained in the body article, which is in #Early studies. Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 10 Desember 2022 01.14 (UTC)Balas
Oh, I see what you mean. You're correct: no need for a citation in the lead. You can just delete the tag. And the other edit too makes little difference either way, so go ahead and revert it. If they disagree, that's what the talk page is for.
There's little problem with reverting edits to GA and FA articles. The articles have already been judged to be in good shape the way they are, so you can just revert with an edit summary of "not an improvement" or "not needed" etc. Kwamikagami (bicara) 10 Desember 2022 01.20 (UTC)Balas
Galat skrip: tidak ada modul tersebut "Good articles". (Script error: No such module "Good articles")
I also requested someone else, but they didn't understand either; and I also created {{invoke}}, but it didn't really work at all. Perhaps you are the only one who can understand this problem. You can report the results on my talk page, or here, or the talk page of FA and GA topics; and I think it is okay to speak English. Regards, Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 25 Desember 2022 14.09 (UTC)Balas
Thank you, but I have to say that I am truly sorry since it is already been fixed by other editors. You can still fix it if there is another errors of the module, if you have a time. Regards, Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 26 Desember 2022 00.03 (UTC)Balas
Hello, @Kwamikagami. It's good to see you at this night. I want to question something. Is there any limitation to the percentage of copyvio similarity in Wikipedia English guidelines? In Wikipedia English, I didn't see any strong copyvio at some title references in an article—except quotes only for some cases (example 2b2t, which is 28.6% similarity). However, as for Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia, there are some cases where the article has similarities in title references (examples Greg Moore) which is supposed, logically, could be a violation of plagiarism. Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 4 Mei 2023 17.09 (UTC)Balas
I've not heard of anyone using automated comparisons for copyvio on WP-en. People normally make a personal comparison. They might use a scan to detect suspicious articles to check, but I haven't heard of any being reported for only that. Kwamikagami (bicara) 4 Mei 2023 19.17 (UTC)Balas
Hmm... I guess I've misunderstand about it. Could you tell me how the copyvio tools works? Also, I thought WP:COPYVIO states that "even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism;" and if any of the article has smallest of similarity, that could be violation because of copyright. Did I miss something here? Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 5 Mei 2023 07.00 (UTC)Balas
No, that's correct. I've just never heard of someone claiming that an article is copyvio because of a certain percentage similarity according to a bot. But then, I've never used the copyvio tools. Kwamikagami (bicara) 5 Mei 2023 07.03 (UTC)Balas
However, doesn't it matter if a (GA or FA) article has similarity (even thought it is small percentage) in Wikipedia English? Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 5 Mei 2023 09.49 (UTC)Balas
Sometimes there are only a few good ways to word something, so people will independently come up with approximately the same wording. That's not plagiarism. In fact, sometimes it's very difficult to not sound like the source, because any change of their wording will sound bad. The copy-vio people understand this, and will accept it. You don't need to distort the prose into gibberish just to avoid sounding like your sources. For example, if you wrote, "John Doe was born in 1956 and died in 1968", that wouldn't be copyvio just because someone else used the same words. How else are you expected to say it?
That's the difference between people and a bot: a bot may flag it as very similar, but human review will realize that that's how almost anyone would word it. The point is to not copy creative wording.
There is something similar with images. For example, imagine that you create an image of the letter 'C' from your own handwriting. No matter how you write it, it's going to look like someone else's letter 'C'. That's not copyvio. You don't have to distort it into some bizarre shape just to make it unique: There's no creativity in making a simple 'C' shape.
Hi. I want to ask, that I confused about CS1 and CS2. Why are these citation style exist, especially in Wikipedia English? Is there any reason or history about the usage of citation style differently? In Wikipedia English, there are two different citation styles, and the guidelines such as WP:CITEVAR prevented to change without seeking discussion first. Dedhert.Jr (bicara) 8 Mei 2023 17.07 (UTC)Balas
No idea. I would assume it reflects differences in the literature and difference in how editors were taught in school, and that they have not been able to come to agreement on a universal standard. CS1 uses periods and CS2 commas. You can also used CS1 with "mode=cs2". Personally, I prefer the latter, and I suspect that personal preference all this is. Kwamikagami (bicara) 8 Mei 2023 21.30 (UTC)Balas
Hello Kwamikagami, I noticed that you added a number of images of planetary and satellite symbols right in the lead paragraphs of planetary articles. Honestly, this isn't great. Apart from the fact that the appearance will be disturbed, this will also trigger other users to suspect you of hyperbolizing in Wikipedia articles. Images should not be placed in any paragraph unless it is absolutely necessary, for example in articles on mathematics topics such as Square pyramid and the like, even if they use a separate template. Maybe you brought a precedent from other language Wikipedias, so I would say that Indonesian Wikipedia is certainly not the same as other editions of Wikipedia. Once again, I ask for your cooperation to stop this. Thank You. ▪ ꧋ꦩꦣꦪ.Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)19 Februari 2024 10.38 (UTC)Balas
Of course, Fazoffic. Pardon for the inconvenience.
