Talk:Palu/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:27, 15 September 2023 (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: Dylnuge (talk · contribs) 22:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Nyanardsan, I'm picking up this review as part of the GAN backlog drive! Noting for record that previous review was a procedural closure due to the nominator taking a wikibreak and there are no outstanding areas of special concern. I'll be leaving initial comments here shortly and will continue to leave comments as I go through the review. Feel free to reply and address comments as I make them or to wait for me to finish reviewing—whatever works best for you! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Initial comments: No obvious copyvio found (and an actual 0.0% on the "best match" from Earwig). Article is stable. Citations exist and there are no major issues with layout, however the citations to "Badan Pusat Statistik" and "Biro Pusat Statistik" should be expanded to make it clear where this data is coming from (a URL would be fine here, as would the title of a specific publication)—ref layout on hold until that is fixed. Caught some grammar issues but prose appears close to ready; nothing that can't be fixed during review. No immediate concerns with broadness, focus, or neutrality. Images exist and appear relevant to the article; since there's many of them I'll do a more extensive review before marking a pass. Overall things look good! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think it makes sense to only list one population value in the lead; either the 2020 official census or the estimate. Not sure if there's an MOS rule about which to use, though I'd lean towards using the official census values here since they're used extensively in the demographics section and it's arguably a more stable option for the article.
the most notable being a magnitude 7.5 event in 2018 — I would drop "most notable" (it's editorializing)—the following sentences make it very clear why it's notable. I would also call it the 2018 Sulawesi earthquake in the lead instead of wikilinking the magnitude
~~Palu is relatively new.~~ — This doesn't tell the reader anything; relative to when? The history section should be providing dates. This can be years or even centuries, but the reader should be able to tell when things happened. For instance, the "Tomalanggai Era" is eventually described as having lasted until about the 16th century, but there's no indication of when it began.
On the same note as above, there's a decent amount of conflation between Palu as a government entity incorporated in 1978 and Palu as a general populated area that's existed since the 1500s. This distinction should be made clear to the reader.
I assume there are other articles covering the history of Sulawesi and Indonesia. These sections seem like they're not focused on Palu; there are mentions of what was happening in Palu, but also lots of language about trade in the region in general, the arrival of Dutch and Portuguese colonists, the Merah Putih Movement, etc. You can use Template:see also to link readers to the additional information (and add it to appropriate articles if it's missing), and focus these sections on what was happening in Palu (the background information needed to give a reader context is fine, but that constitutes entire paragraphs here).
I find it surprising there's not much information on the earthquake that lead to moving the vast majority of the city. What parts of the city were destroyed? Where is the city being moved to? What does it mean for this process to be 45% complete—is that the percentage of people who have been moved, the percentage of construction? I think this should be significantly expanded. Given this and the above, I'm putting broadness/focus on hold awaiting improvements.
(Optional) I think just an "N/A" works fine in the population table for the districts that were created in 2011, but the footnote is also fine if you prefer it.
The governance section also seems like it needs expansion. There's no information about people or politics—the info here is limited to basic factual information about the organization of government (e.g. a mayor's office is mentioned, but no mayors are). I find it hard to believe there is nothing noteworthy that happened in the history of city government. Take a look at the related section of GA cities like Albany, New York#Government or Johor#Politics (doesn't need to be as comprehensive and illustrated as the latter example, but should give the reader a good sense of how city government functions in practice, and not just the basics of the organization).
~~Is it standard practice to write the full name Rupiah when describing amounts in the currency? From a quick search, it looks like these can be shortened as, e.g., Rp24,175.89 trillion.~~
The Economy section, like the history section, seems to use Palu to refer to the current city area before it was incorporated in its present form. Not as much detail is needed here, but it would be good to clarify a bit.
COVID impact and current GRP make sense at the start, but so would a breakdown of which industries are contributing heavily to that, since that's how this section is organized.
Is 2022 economic data available yet? Seems worth adding if so.
(Optional) Some of this economic information might be better displayed in a table as well; not a necessary change but a good way to reflect changes between each year without cluttering prose.
The sex ratio in the city was 100, meaning the ratio of males to females is relatively equal and stable — I'd just phrase this as "The ratio between males and females was equal" or similar. I'm not sure how common reporting sex ratio as a number like "100" is; I was personally unfamiliar with it and more familiar with e.g. "1:1", but that might be a regionalism.
The population of the city's Mantikulore district grew 1.77% growth between 2010 and 2020—the fastest growth in the city—while the slowest was West Palu with 0.43% population growth. — Was the city's overall growth rate also reported?
{The city's most prominent university also might be editorializing; ideally rephrase to attribute that it's prestigious to a reliable source.
It'd be good in the Transportation section to mention major connections via highways, rail, etc, in the same vein as the bus routes and shipping routes mentioned.
In 2021, Statistics Indonesia noted there were 82 online newspapers operating in the city. Prominent newspapers in the city include SultengRaya, Tribun Palu, and the media wing of Alkhairaat — Are these newspapers specifically serving Palu, or just newspapers based in the city. Either way this is noteworthy, but the article should make it clear if this is local news or not. Also, if Palu is a large regional center for media outlets (82 strikes me as large, but I don't have a point of comparison), this probably merits a mention under the Economics section as well.
N Images check — The article is well illustrated and captioned. Photographs are government photographs released into the public domain in Indonesia or user uploads to Commons that are released under a CC license. For the public domain images, they also need to be tagged with an appropriate tag indicating they are public domain in the United States (see instructions on Commons), because it is possible for an image to be under copyright in the US but not in its country of origin, and English Wikipedia is a US-based legal entity (see Wikipedia:Public domain). Note these tags should be in addition to the existing proof of public domain status in Indonesia. See File:Palu Map 1941.png for an example of what to do here.
Images bunch up a bit towards the end; at my screen resolution, the car-free day photo is next to the citations.

Sourcing Spot Check

Reviewer note: I do not speak Indonesian; all spot checking on Indonesian language sources here is being carried out with the help of Google Translate. As such, please call out if there are places where I've made an error in interpretation; generally this process is good enough to verify the information appears, but it's very much not perfect.

Y Reliability looks good overall. Primary sources are used appropriately to make statements about data attributed to them like census and climate data. Secondary sources are primarily Indonesian newspapers, though there are a few journal citations. I have no concerns from the ones I looked closely at, though I'm not an expert on Indonesian news outlets.
N As noted when I started the review, there are several sources that are insufficiently cited, including a bare link to a PDF (cite 19 as of [1]).
Y Palu's gross regional product (GRP) was valued at 24,175.89 trillion Rupiah in 2020. The city's economic growth was 5.79% in 2019 but later fell to -4.54% in 2020. This contraction on city's economic growth was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and the restrictions that later followed. — Cited to [2]. GRP from 2020 listed on p. 22. Percentage changes in GRDP on pg. 20. COVID impacts mentioned in a couple places, e.g. on p. 13 where the substantial downturn in construction projects is listed; statement in article is a valid and uncontroversial summary.
Y In Palu, the dissolution of the State of East Indonesia and return to a unitary republic occurred in a building today called Gedung Juang — Cited to three sources, two Kompas articles ([3], [4]) and a book published in 1984 ([5]). The first article appears to verify this claim. The second article has additional information about the dissolution but doesn't mention the building. I'm not clear why three sources are needed here, though if the information is in the book source it might be the preferable source to keep here.
? Most of the city's population are Muslims; the region was converted to Islam in the 17th century. The population of Christians are mostly migrants from other parts of Indonesia but there is also a local Christian population due to missionary activities in the region that started in 1888. Other minorities exist are Buddhists and Hindus from other parts of Indonesia. — Cited to the 1984 book ([6]). I was able to find a copy of the book but don't speak Indonesian and don't have specific pages for this; Nyanardsan can you provide the relevant pages here so I can validate?

Overall sources look like they're in good shape. Putting this on hold for the page number confirmation above and fixing the couple of bare-reference cites, but I see no sign that this is an issue.

Summary

On hold — Things look good within the initial review. There are several broadness and focus concerns I highlighted above, as well as a few prose concerns, and a few reference issues; all of this is described in detail above. I'm putting this review on hold for 7 days to provide time to address these concerns. Please feel free to ask me questions; I'm happy to help with changes that should be made. Thanks! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, I shall try to address the comments as soon as possible. Nyanardsan (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Nyanardsan, let me know if you need any help addressing stuff. It's technically been almost 7 days since this was put on hold, but I'm personally fine keeping it open if you need a bit more time to address comments. Let me know what works best for you; my goal here is to improve the article to the point its GA-ready. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really apologize for the trouble, college life has catched up and I find myself difficult to find time for editing or contributing in any way to Wikipedia. If you don't mind, may I ask for another 7 days? If not you can fail all of my nominations,

I apologize once again and thank you very much for the effort of the reviews. Nyanardsan (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for keep doing this again, please withdraw the review. Im really sorry for keep withdrawing otherwise-good article noms. @Dylnuge Nyanardsan (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @Nyanardsan; it's totally normal for real life to get in the way (I myself have been pretty inactive the last two weeks because of some RL stuff, totally get it). I'll close this as withdrawn. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Withdrawn by nominator. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.