Talk:Gunungsitoli/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen the nominator's request to take a no-exceptions 1 year break from Wikipedia, and to therefore fail all their current GA nominations. If I was in a position to pass this article with minimal changes, I would implement them myself, but unfortunately I think this article needs more work than that and so it will not pass right now. I look forward to welcoming the nominator back and possibly reviewing this article again in a year! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues, pass.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Most sources are non-English and translated, so chance of direct copyvio is slim. Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
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.	Pass, no issues with stability.
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.	Provisional pass; just one question. I see that many of the images are taken by the local city government - as Indonesia is a unitary state, I assume this means they are public-domain because there is no copyright distinction between the "Government of Indonesia" (nationwide) and any local government authority, correct?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	What is Adu Zatua? If not explained in text it should be explained or linked in the image caption. 1970s boom grammar issue: should be "saw a short-lived tourism boom" not "seen a short-lived tourist boom", infrastructure should be singular Substitute in "US Navy personnel together with Indonesian army troops at Binaka Airport following the 2005 earthquake" "Traditional Nias attire. Ethnic Nias..." rather than "Nias people" Remove "the city has a significant population of..." "the main hospital"
	7. Overall assessment.

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.