![]() | Sabah has been listed as one of the
Geography and places good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 24, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sabah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Sarawak was copied or moved into Sabah. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() |
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: NgYShung ( talk · contribs) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Status: GA Passed. See comment below.
NgYShung
huh? 05:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Appropriately tagged with {{ EngvarB}} and on the article talk page. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No doubt. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | A ton of references (500+) had been given. |
![]() |
2b. 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). | The sources were reliable for majority. Please note that some of them are dead (see checklinks result), I hope there are improvements after on. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | I did not suspect any original research. Looks clear! |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Note for other user: At Earwig's copyvio detector it displays 60%, but it qualifies under fair use as it was used in quotation. see WP:COPYQUOTE. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I see some disputes over Talk:Sabah/Archive 2. And the article undergo a lot of editing by User:Molecule Extraction. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Quite tense as there are a lot of images in the article. If there is anything I did not notice, please comment down below. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | For majority of the criteria is approved, I would like to say the article, Sabah successfully passed through WP:GA?. It may even passed WP:FA, but there is still one step ahead for WP:FA?. I would like to see some of the references fixed, and be more stable by not edit too frequently. Other more experienced reviewers, if you think the article does not fit perfectly on good article criteria, feel free to reassess it. |
First look: Looks quite good at first sight. There is a red link in the article (which should be removed). Decorated with lots of picture. NgYShung huh? 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
NgYShung
huh? 09:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
On hold 5+ days. Lack inline citation at the lead section. Try add more citation there from the current available references. See
WP:LEADCITE.
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on Sabah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sabah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The demography section was split off into a new article Demographics of Sabah, however, what was left is unsatisfactory. Please add a proper summary in this section, for example religious affiliations, ethnic groups, languages and other issues. It should not be detailed, and an extra paragraph or two of a few sentences each is sufficient, but it is nevertheless necessary. Hzh ( talk) 10:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Sabah has been listed as one of the
Geography and places good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 24, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sabah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Sarawak was copied or moved into Sabah. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() |
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: NgYShung ( talk · contribs) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Status: GA Passed. See comment below.
NgYShung
huh? 05:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Appropriately tagged with {{ EngvarB}} and on the article talk page. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No doubt. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | A ton of references (500+) had been given. |
![]() |
2b. 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). | The sources were reliable for majority. Please note that some of them are dead (see checklinks result), I hope there are improvements after on. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | I did not suspect any original research. Looks clear! |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Note for other user: At Earwig's copyvio detector it displays 60%, but it qualifies under fair use as it was used in quotation. see WP:COPYQUOTE. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I see some disputes over Talk:Sabah/Archive 2. And the article undergo a lot of editing by User:Molecule Extraction. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Quite tense as there are a lot of images in the article. If there is anything I did not notice, please comment down below. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | For majority of the criteria is approved, I would like to say the article, Sabah successfully passed through WP:GA?. It may even passed WP:FA, but there is still one step ahead for WP:FA?. I would like to see some of the references fixed, and be more stable by not edit too frequently. Other more experienced reviewers, if you think the article does not fit perfectly on good article criteria, feel free to reassess it. |
First look: Looks quite good at first sight. There is a red link in the article (which should be removed). Decorated with lots of picture. NgYShung huh? 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
NgYShung
huh? 09:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
On hold 5+ days. Lack inline citation at the lead section. Try add more citation there from the current available references. See
WP:LEADCITE.
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on Sabah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sabah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The demography section was split off into a new article Demographics of Sabah, however, what was left is unsatisfactory. Please add a proper summary in this section, for example religious affiliations, ethnic groups, languages and other issues. It should not be detailed, and an extra paragraph or two of a few sentences each is sufficient, but it is nevertheless necessary. Hzh ( talk) 10:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)