Talk:Sabah/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: NgYShung (talk · contribs) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Status: Y GA Passed. See comment below. NgYShung ^huh? 05:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Criteria Table

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.	Appropriately tagged with {{EngvarB}} and on the article talk page.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No doubt.
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.	A ton of references (500+) had been given.
	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).	The sources were reliable for majority. Please note that some of them are dead (see checklinks result), I hope there are improvements after on.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I did not suspect any original research. Looks clear!
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Note for other user: At Earwig's copyvio detector it displays 60%, but it qualifies under fair use as it was used in quotation. see WP:COPYQUOTE.
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.	I see some disputes over Talk:Sabah/Archive 2. And the article undergo a lot of editing by User:Molecule Extraction.
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.	Quite tense as there are a lot of images in the article. If there is anything I did not notice, please comment down below.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	For majority of the criteria is approved, I would like to say the article, Sabah successfully passed through WP:GA?. It may even passed WP:FA, but there is still one step ahead for WP:FA?. I would like to see some of the references fixed, and be more stable by not edit too frequently. Other more experienced reviewers, if you think the article does not fit perfectly on good article criteria, feel free to reassess it.

Reviewer/Nominator comments

First look: Looks quite good at first sight. There is a red link in the article (which should be removed). Decorated with lots of picture. NgYShung ^huh? 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 On hold 5+ days. Lack inline citation at the lead section. Try add more citation there from the current available references. See WP:LEADCITE. NgYShung ^huh? 09:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi NgYShung, thanks for taking your time to review. About the lead citation, AFAIK based on the MoS guide as been stated here:

The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

That means only the very controversial part in the lead that really needs citation (for example such as in this article, the population numbers and the making of Islam as the official religion of this state) <-- this could still be disputed by some readers if the statement come without any reliable citation, especially if it come without government documents. I have see other past nominations in the GA nomination page before with the reviewer there telling to not using too much citation in the lead. Molecule Extraction (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. But please cite "along with the threats of annexation from the Philippines which existed until today" at the lead section. The content biased a little and did not mentioned in the article. NgYShung ^huh? 10:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I write the part based from the citation here, from a book written by Hans H. Indorf in 1984. Will add this to the sentence now. :) Molecule Extraction (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added two more citations [1], [2] for your understanding on the issues. Molecule Extraction (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Along with a book written by Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller. :) Molecule Extraction (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@NgYShung: Thanks, but wouldn't this article should be checked for the grammar with a copyedit? Because I feel the English in this article still need to be corrected as I am not an English native contributor. Molecule Extraction (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a note I'm not a native English speaker also. And also I think the other criteria outruns it. You can just be WP:BOLD and correct it, and maybe also contact the WP:GRAMMAR team. Regards, NgYShung ^huh? 06:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

OK then if like that, I just hope that any random copy editors passer-by will fix any grammatical errors in the article. So once again, thanks for reviewing! May the nature bless you always! Molecule Extraction (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)