This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kuala Terengganu 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 |
Kuala Terengganu 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: August 14, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Kuala Terengganu appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 September 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sovereign Sentinel ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I will review this. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 14:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Checklinks: three dead links. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 14:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADLENGTH, articles of this size should usually have three to four paragraphs in the lead section. The lead section needs to be expanded. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 06:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 12:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 13:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 14:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 01:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 01:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 07:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
So… before I continue, I think it would be a better idea to first copyedit the article. Read through the article again, fix any grammatical mistakes/typos you find during the process. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 13:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Fikku fiq and Muffin Wizard, I am placing this article on hold. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 07:24, 12 August 2015 (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. | Concerns have been brought up and fixed. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Concerns have been brought up and fixed. | |
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. | Originally unsourced content has either been removed or sourced. | |
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). | Sources are good enough for this topic. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Content that may constitute original research has either been removed or sourced. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | A few aspects have been added during the review. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problems here. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The tone of the article was originally quite positive, although that has been addressed. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Most, if not all edits are constructive and improve the article. No edit warring. | |
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. | Great work with the images. Please note that I helped transfer a few images to Commons. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All images have suitable captions and are located at suitable locations. | |
7. Overall assessment. | I am going to pass this article. There has been a lot of progress and the article now meets the GA criteria. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kuala Terengganu. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kuala Terengganu 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 |
Kuala Terengganu 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: August 14, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Kuala Terengganu appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 September 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sovereign Sentinel ( talk · contribs) 14:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I will review this. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 14:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Checklinks: three dead links. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 14:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADLENGTH, articles of this size should usually have three to four paragraphs in the lead section. The lead section needs to be expanded. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 06:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 12:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 13:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 14:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 01:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 01:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
-- sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 07:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
So… before I continue, I think it would be a better idea to first copyedit the article. Read through the article again, fix any grammatical mistakes/typos you find during the process. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 13:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Fikku fiq and Muffin Wizard, I am placing this article on hold. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 07:24, 12 August 2015 (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. | Concerns have been brought up and fixed. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Concerns have been brought up and fixed. | |
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. | Originally unsourced content has either been removed or sourced. | |
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). | Sources are good enough for this topic. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Content that may constitute original research has either been removed or sourced. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | A few aspects have been added during the review. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problems here. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The tone of the article was originally quite positive, although that has been addressed. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Most, if not all edits are constructive and improve the article. No edit warring. | |
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. | Great work with the images. Please note that I helped transfer a few images to Commons. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All images have suitable captions and are located at suitable locations. | |
7. Overall assessment. | I am going to pass this article. There has been a lot of progress and the article now meets the GA criteria. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kuala Terengganu. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)