Talk:Wan Azizah Wan Ismail/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Pangalau (talk · contribs) 09:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Happy to take this on for review, having seen it was nominated for the Developing Countries WikiContest. I'm looking forward to learning about this leader of the Malaysian opposition. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• I've noticed throughout the article we mention "PKR" without a definite article. These should be changed to say "the PKR" to correct the grammar.
  • Fixed issue.

Early life and education

• "Her mother, who only had a basic education, raised her." Was this as a single parent?
  • Provided names of both her parents.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• This Free Malaysia Today source is actually a mirror of an article for Bloomberg by Pooi Koon Chong and Jodi Schneider. The original publication and authors should be cited, instead of a mirror.
  • Source changed.
• "Her grandfather was of Peranakan descent" Think this could be more explicitly elaborated as "Peranakan Chinese descent", so the reader doesn't have to click through to understand the significance.
  • Sentence rephrased.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• "Malay Muslim" Link to Islam in Malaysia.
  • Done.
• "St. Nicholas Convent School" This links to SMK Convent, Alor Setar, which doesn't mention the name "St. Nicholas". Are we confidant this is the same school?
  • The "St. Nicholas Convent School" has been de-linked because it might not be the same school.
• Spotcheck: [8][9] Verified.
• I'm not so sure about the reliability of this Aliran source, as the tone of the article is rather partisan and sensationalist, and it appears to be an opposition NGO. I think if this information is verified by the Mothership article, then there's no need to cite Aliran as well.
  • Source removed.
• Spotcheck: [11] It seems these few sentences about her medical studies are rather closely paraphrased from this source. Although this is pretty basic information that is difficult to present differently, I'd still recommend a slight rewording for safety.
• "Wan Azizah served as a government doctor for 14 years" Do we know what she did in this role during this time? It would be helpful to have even a sentence or two more about her career as a doctor.
  • There is limited information on her medical career, but she did provide some additional details that readers might find helpful.
• "[...] when her husband, Anwar Ibrahim [...]" This is the first time we're being informed that she was married to Ibrahim, so it's a bit jarring. I see this detail is in a rather short "Personal life" section, so I'd recommend moving it into this section. It'll help the chronology.
  • Done.
• What was it about her husband's political career that prompted her to resign from her medical career?
  • Provided explanation.
• "voluntary pursuits" What does this mean?
  • It might mean she did so in her own free will, but sentence has since been rephrased.
• The authors of the Asiaweek article should be credited in the citation.
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.

Early political career

• "Following the dismissal and arrest of her husband" Context?
  • Context provided.
• "the Reformasi movement" Could we briefly explain what this movement is?
  • Context provided.
• Spotcheck: [16] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [16][17] First woman verified by Voice of ASEAN, 9,077-vote majority verified by Malaysiakini.
• "albeit unsuccessfully in preventing his party" -> "although she was unsuccessful in preventing his party"
  • Done.
• "Malay unity" What does this refer to?
  • It might refer to Ketuanan Melayu, the political concept that emphasises Malay hegemony and preeminence.
• "Her position underscored fissures in the electorate and the limits of traditional appeals to ethnic solidarity" According to whom?
  • Sentence removed.
• "People's Justice Party" As this is the first time we're mentioning it in the body of the article, it should be linked.
• Link to 2004 Malaysian general election.
  • Done.
• "Although PKR had not yet been registered by the Registrar of Societies at that time," Is this relevant to her election? How did it affect her?
  • Sentence removed.
• I don't think we should be citing the People's Justice Party website if it can be avoided. If this information is all verified by the other two sources, then there's no need to cite this one as well. If there's information only verified by this source, then that text should probably be trimmed.
  • Source removed.
• "With the public announcement by Anwar regarding his intention to return to active politics despite being legally barred from doing so" This could do with a rewrite for concision.
  • Sentence rephrased.
• "Wan Azizah indicated her readiness to vacate the position of party president if he was elected" When did this happen?
  • Year provided.
• Spotcheck: [24] Verified.
• Reuters citation should credit the article's author.
  • Done.
• "With the public announcement by Anwar [...]" "Anwar, running as a PKR candidate, [...]" These two sentences should be restructured so we keep the focus on Wan Azizah. This biography is about her, not her husband.
  • Sentences rephrased.
• "Under her continued leadership," I thought she agreed to vacate the party presidency? What changed?
  • It is unclear why she retained her party position.
• "which she won with a majority of 13,388 votes" Which seat did she win in?
  • Parliamentary seat provided.
• Spotcheck: [26] Verified.
• "The party also performed well at the state level" What does any of this have to do with Wan Azizah?
  • Sentence removed.

Leader of the Opposition

• Due to the length of the infobox, this image being aligned on the left has resulted in the sandwiching of text. I'd recommend either moving the image, removing it, or finding a way to shorten the infobox.
  • Image removed.
• Spotcheck: [27] Verified.
• Citation to The Star should credit the article's authors.
  • Done.
• "even though the party remained noncommittal about Anwar's release or future as prime minister" Was he not already released? How did he run in the election? Also, what does this have to do with Wan Azizah's ascendency to Leader of the Opposition?
  • Sentence removed.
• Link to State Peace and Development Council, so it is clearer this is the military junta of Myanmar.
  • Done.
• Link to 2008 Myanmar constitutional referendum.
  • Done.
• "postponement of the vote to prioritise relief efforts [...]" -> "postponement of the vote, to prioritise relief efforts"
  • Done.
• "Her tenure as opposition leader ended on 28 August 2008" Why? Who succeeded her?
  • Information given of her successor, but no information on why she stepped down.
• There is an enormous gap here between 2008 and 2014. What was she doing in these six years?
  • A legal issue and information on the 2013 general election stated.
• "after Anwar was disqualified from running due to a five-year prison sentence following the overturning of his sodomy acquittal" This is the first time we're mentioning a sodomy case or an acquittal, so this is all rather confusing. I think this could be trimmed to say "after Anwar was disqualified from running due to a prison sentence".
  • Done.
• "She won the Kajang seat" We already know she was running for the Kajang seat, so no need to mention it again.
  • Rephrased.
• Spotcheck: [33][34] Verified.
• "After Anwar was disqualified [...]" Again, sentence structure should focus on Wan Azizah, not Anwar.
  • Rephrased.
• "Wan Azizah contested and retained the seat for PKR" Why did she contest a different seat when she was already holding one?
• Spotcheck: [39] Verified.
  • Fixed incorrect context as it was for the 2015 general election.
• Did she do anything else as Leader of the Opposition other than form this political coalition?
  • Dosen't appear to have any more notable actions during her tenure.
• "UMNO" Worth mentioning this is the dominant party in Malay politics.
  • Mentioned.
• "Barisan Nasional (BN)" Worth mentioning this was the ruling coalition in Malaysia.
  • Mentioned.
• "the 2018 general election" This is the first time we're mentioning it, so the 2018 Malaysian general election should be linked here, not in the next section.
  • Done.

Deputy Prime Minister

• "deputy prime minister" Link to Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia
  • Done.
• "after securing 64,733 votes in a five-cornered contest" What does this mean? I thought she was elected with a majority of 52,543 votes in Pandan? What's a "five corned contest"?
  • The term "five corned contest" has been removed.
• "she was appointed as deputy prime minister" In whose government?
  • Context given.
• "Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Muhammad V" I think this title could be shortened to "King", just for the sake of concision and understandability.
  • The term "Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Muhammad V" was removed and replaced with the name of their state for greater precision.
• Spotcheck: [42] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [44] Verified.
• We mention three different Sultans in this one section, so it'd be helpful to make it a bit clearer what they are Sultans of.
  • The term "Sultan" was removed and replaced with the name of their state for greater precision.
• "she officially left office on 25 February 2020" Was this her decision? What was the reasoning?
  • Context given.
• Why was there such a long time between Wan Azizah leaving office and Ismail Sabri Yaakob being appointed?
  • Context given.

Later life

• This is a very short section. Is there nowhere better for this information to be conveyed? If there's no more to her later political career than being re-elected, then perhaps this could be merged into the previous section?
  • I have expanded this section.
• Spotcheck: [50] Verified.
• Has she done anything of note in parliament since 2022? What was the context of the picture with Yoshiko Ishiba?
  • Provided additional information into this section.

Personal life

• As above, this is a very short section without enough detail to justify it being a separate section. This information could be moved into the "Early life and education" section to better preserve the chronology of the article.
  • I have expanded this section.

Awards and honours

• This is already a short section, so there's no need to break it up into two sub-sections.
  • Further expanded the section.
• "Wan Azizah received the 2025 Lifetime Achievement Award" What were some of her accomplishments that she was honoured for?
  • Context provided.
• "Eminent Educator Award" She was an educator? That part seems missing from the article. What has she done in education?
  • Context provided.
• All spotchecks verified.
• "Penang: Knight Commander of the Order of the Defender of State (DPPN) – Dato' Seri (2008)" This isn't a helpful format as it gives us no context about it. Why was she awarded this? In what context?
  • Context provided.

Lead and infobox

• This lead strikes me as rather short, given the length of the article. Per the Manual of Style on Lead sections, the lead should provide an overview of all the important points in the article, but this covers very little.
  • Expanded lede.
• Again per the Manual of Style, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered by information in the body of the article. However, her being the first woman to be deputy prime minister, the second woman to lead a political party, and the spouse of the prime minister; none of these details are mentioned in the body of the article. This is all significant information one would expect to be in the body of the article, not solely in the lead.
  • Fixed issue.
• Again per the Manual of Style, there is no need to cite sources in the lead for information already covered in the article. Ideally, the lead should be a summary of the article's contents, and not include any new information that could be challenged. I'd recommend giving the Manual of Style on Lead sections a full read over, and then rewrite the lead based on these guidelines, moving information into the article where necessary.
  • Removed sources from lede.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is sometimes unclear or not concise enough, and there's a couple cases where the grammar needs fixing.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead section needs a full rewrite, per the Manual of Style.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   A couple cases where the citations are incomplete, not providing credit to the sources' authors.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   A couple examples of questionable sources, from the websites of political organisations; both could easily be cut without losing necessary information.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research as far as I could see.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   {{{1}}}

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   This might be the biggest issue with the article right now, as there's quite a few large gaps in the biography that raise questions about what the subject was doing in those periods. For such a significant figure, multiple years-long gaps in the timeline are quite noticeable.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There's some case where it loses focus from the subject, and instead starts talking about other people or events that she is tangentially related to. Sentence structure and content should keep the focus on the subject unless absolutely necessary to provide additional context.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No clear violations of the neutral point of view, with the article not taking a stance in her favour or against her.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No substantial changes since GA nomination; last reverts were minor edits months before the nomination.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images have valid licenses.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are of the subject and suitably captioned (although they could do with alt text).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article has clearly had a lot of work put into it, but it needs more work before it will meet the good article criteria. In particular, it falls short on broadness and has some issues with prose that need fixing before I can pass the review. I'm happy to give time for improvements to be made. Feel free to ping me once the above comments have been addressed and/or if you have any questions. Nice work on this so far! --Grnrchst (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: I've made some improvements to the article based on your feedback. Pangalau (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pangalau: Fabulous, thanks. I'll give this another look over and get back to you if I have any additional comments. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pangalau: Thank you for seeing to all of these comments so promptly and thoroughly. This has been more than enough to address the issues with the article and bring it up to GA criteria. I've made some minor copyedits here and there to bring it safely over the line, so feel free to check my changes. Fantastic work on this article and congratulations on the GA promotion! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.