Talk:Banjarbaru/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 02:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

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) 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);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Looks good to me after some minor copy-editing of my own.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Same as above.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Banjarbaru#References	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources look reliable to me, especially plenty of government sources.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyvio or plagiarism from what I can see.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Seems like everything important has been covered.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
I definitely don't see any NPOV issues here.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
While there have been some changes made pretty recently, I see no signs of edit warring or disputes.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Couldn't find actual license for image of Q Mall, see #Q Mall Image, all looks good now.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Looks fantastic to me!	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Great article, had some issues with licensing with one or two or the photos but all looks good to me now, marking this article as GA!

Discussion

Q Mall Image

@Nyanardsan: See my comment in 6a, please respond in this section when you have a chance. Bsoyka ✉ 14:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. Right, so the mall image is apparently not exist inside the video itself, only a thumbnail (i previously assumed it was). I nominated the image for deletion and changed it to another image that exist inside the video source with appropriate licensing. I hope thats fixed now. Nyanardsan (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyanardsan: I don't think the problem is it being from the thumbnail rather than the video itself – I'm saying I don't see any evidence that the video is under a CC license at all. For example, the video would have a CC tag on the search results page, which I don't see. Bsoyka 🗣️ 23:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-review all images on this page, does that mean I should withdrawn the nomination first? Sorry for late respond. Thanks Nyanardsan (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyanardsan: In that case, I'll just put the nomination on hold for up to a week to give you time to review the licensing for all those – no need to withdraw the nomination unless you don't think you can get that fixed up within about 7 days. Other than this discussion, all looks good to me! Bsoyka 🗣️ 03:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ^^ Ill do it ASAP Nyanardsan (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it and i believe all images are appropriate now. Please review it, thanks ^^ Nyanardsan (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great now, thanks for fixing it! Bsoyka 🗣️ 05:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]