Talk:Palangka Raya/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ganesha811, Im looking forward for the review! :) Nyanardsan (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyanardsan, hi! I'm still going through the review, but I wanted to alert you that both the prose check and the source reliability check are turning up issues. These, in combination with some of the problems I've laid out in 2a and 6a, mean that the article is not in a position to pass GA right now. I also have concerns about 3a, breadth - it seems to me that there are aspects of the page that could use more comprehensive coverage. All of these problems are fixable, though, so I wanted to ask - how much time will you have to dedicate to this article? I can either continue the review and fail it for now, or I could put it on hold and give you a little longer to improve it (say two weeks). Which would you prefer? Ganesha811 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would prefer it to be on hold and fix all the issues. Yes, two weeks please. Thank you Nyanardsan (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyanardsan, ok, I'll put it on hold. I'll also put some more detail on the prose and source reliability check down below so you have that to work on as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: Hi, i'd like to withdrawn the nomination for now since i just found sources on economic of the city and also its history after 1965(regarding involvement of Soviet armed forces). City's history between 1970s up to 2010s is relatively calm and uneventful,nothing worth mentioning, but since I find significant information missing, this article would have some more expansion. Thank you Nyanardsan (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - I'll fail the article for now. I'm glad you're expanding it. Whenever you re-nominate it for GA, ping me and I'll be happy to volunteer to review it again. Happy writing until then! Ganesha811 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2021 (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.	The lead could be longer. It mentions nothing about history, culture, or other important parts of the article. It should be a proper summary of the whole article, while not going into intricate detail. It doesn't need sources, as long as the information is sourced in the body of the article. There are consistent grammatical issues - none egregious, but frequent. For instance, "In Dutch East Indies documents, Pahandut village's existence was known from report of Zacharias Hartman, a Dutch explorer from his journey around Kahayan & Kapuas River in 1823." This might be rephrased as "In colonial documents from the Dutch era, the village of Pahandut was reported by Zacharias Hartman, a Dutch explorer, from his journey around Kahayan & Kapuas River in 1823." Take a look through and fix what grammatical issues you can. Are you a native English speaker? If not, I'd be happy to help myself with some of problems.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues here.
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.	Some of the references are a little bare or require more information. 1 is just Badan Pusat Statistik, 2021 with no specific link or data table. 2 could use a page # and an ISBN or other identifier if possible. 4 has no title or other information listed, it just says "Archived Copy." Shouldn't have to follow a link to find out of what. 19 has same issue as #4. 44 has no detail, like #1. 48 could use more detail, and an online link if possible, but if not more specificity about whose law it is - national, local, etc 76 - who is the author? What is "nurijanti"? Same for #77. 85 needs formatting fixes - capitalization, etc. In general, where possible, please add translated titles to all references not in English - the sources being in Indonesian is fine, but since this is en-wikipedia, it's of use to the readers to be able to understand their titles. There is an attribute for trans-title within normal references, but let me know if you have a question about how to do that.
	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.	No issues found by Earwig or manual spot check against some sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is no coverage of the history of the city between 1965 and 2015. The Demographics section is a bit imprecise. For instance, where it lists ethnicities that "exist in the city", it does not provide any numbers or sense of how many members of these ethnicities live in the city. The economy section is heavily statistical - are there any prominent individual businesses based in the city? It also presents some issues with recentism - any information about how the economy has changed over time would be good to add. The Culture section is underdeveloped. What sports are popular in the city? Are there any other professional sports teams? Is there any local food or musical culture worth mentioning? More detail on the festival or other cultural events throughout the year would also be good. The Transportation section is pretty good - well summarized, a good level of detail, seems comprehensive. A good example for the rest of the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No passages of unnecessary detail.
	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.	No issues with stability, pass.
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.	File:Lambang Kota Palangka Raya.gif needs a US copyright tag in addition to the Indonesian one. Same with File:Coat of arms of Central Kalimantan.png. I am unconvinced that File:Sukarno_in_Palangka_Raya.jpg is provably in the public domain - the tag says it is a work of the Indonesian government, but the attribution links back to an article which links to a YouTube documentary which does not describe the source. In any case it is a low-quality image and the article would be fine without it, so I think it should be removed. File:Palangkaraya_Haze.jpg has an unusual copyright tag and the source link is broken (404) - needs fixing or removal. File:Palangka Raya at night.jpg needs a US copyright tag. In addition, while it is found on a government blog, are we sure it was taken by a government employee? File:Darussalam Grand Mosque Palangka Raya.jpg needs a US copyright tag. File:PalangkaRaya BRT Bus.jpg needs a US copyright tag.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are a few prose issues in captions which can be fixed as part of the prose review, but otherwise fine. As mentioned above, the Sukarno image can be done without.
	7. Overall assessment.