Talk:Gunungsitoli/GA2
GA Review[edit]
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 22:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this nomination—I'll take up to a week to get round to it. This review will be used for Wikicup points. Please consider reviewing an article yourself—the backlog is long, and the WP:GAN list promotes nominators with a good reviewing score. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- AGF on sourcing (I don't speak Indonesian) because google translate seems mostly ok.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Sources are in Indonesian, so CLOP or PLAG impossible.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Captions could be improved. I note that issues raised in the last GA review have not been resolved. Grammar/precision is low.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- A fairly good article—I'll do a copyedit run-through before promotion. All the ingredients for a GA are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- No response, so I'll have to fail this nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
- The governance section doesn't need three separate subsections (see MOS:OVERSECTION). The table in the politics section would work better as prose—it doesn't really say anything.
- The agriculture and industries sections could be combined.
- The same goes for the tourism and landmarks sections.
- The grammar is rather wonky, but as I said, I'll do a general copyedit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2023 (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.