GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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.