Wikipedia:Peer review/Sarawak/archive2

Sarawak

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

.

I've listed this article for peer review because the article already have not been promoted to Featured article status although it has garnered quite a number of responses in the last FA nomination. I have been trying to shortened the article to the readable proze size of 50k but if there is anything that I can do to shorten the article, that will be very much appreciated.

Dudley Miles, Edwininlondon, CMD, is there anyhthing I can do make this article an FA class article?

Thanks, Cerevisae (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon

I'm happy to help, Cerevisae. I will continue with my comments section by section. I'm on the Biodiversity section at the moment.

Thank you very mucb for your help :-) Cerevisae (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think orchids are trees, and the source doesn't actually use the word including - Done Cerevisae (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Sarawak government plans to preserve 60 percent forest cover in the coming years -> that's from 2014, which is now 3 years ago, so probably past tense is better - Done Cerevisae (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
entered Sarawak -> maybe visited is better - Done Cerevisae (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NCR rights -> the R is already for rights. Is it too odd just to say "reinstate their NCR"? - Done Cerevisae (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

Culture, (and perhaps slightly Demographics,) still suffers from being divided up into many tiny sections rather than providing a holistic overview. I've struggled with similar problems in the past and haven't found an easy way to fix it, although there are some examples of how to go about it. When Indonesia last went through FAR (the current Indonesia article has slipped considerably and should not be used as an example), as seen here, the Culture section eschews detail on specific sectors and instead gives overveiws of various aspects within one section. Alternatively, the India article at FAR groups related aspects of culture into the same subsections. CMD (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summarised the culture section. Cerevisae (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

I think that the current article has improved significantly since last FA nomination. I am closing the peer review now and start the 2nd FA nomination. Thanks to Edwininlondon, and CMD. See you at 2nd FA nomination. Let's make the Sarawak FA nomination a success! Cerevisae (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]