Talk:Brunei/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Thehistorian10 (talk · contribs) 16:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
I am not going to use any fancy graphs or charts, being as I cannot manipulate them at all. I am a literalist interpreter of the guidelines, by the way. This review will contain my own judgement, and - where appropriate - citations and examples to reinforce my points. To become a good article, this article must pass at least 90% of the good article criteria. This is to say that the article must fully pass 5 out of six of the criteria in order for it to be given good article status.

Is the article well-written?
I think the article is well written. The subtopics make sense, and are organized appropriately. The spelling and grammar are exemplary. One disadvantage of the lead section is that it can be considered as too long. However, as this is an article about a country, and thus there is much information, the lead can be thus forgiven for being too long, as it must summarise much information in a short space.

Is the article factually accurate and verifiable?
Every paragraph has an accompanying inline source. There is an adequate number of sources for the article, bearing in mind the amount of research required for a geographical article, and also bearing in mind the article's size. There are no evident signs of original research.

Is the article broad in its coverage?
This is a geographical article, and, as such, should BROADLY cover all aspects of the country - its history, tourism, economy, climate, geography, politics, culture (which includes media) and its demographics. The infobox contains much supplementary geographical information.

The article is broad, and yet detailed enough to reinforce the points it makes. However, detail is somewhat lacking in the "history" section, although this is offset by the link to the article "History of Brunei", where one can expect to find more detailed information.

Is the article neutral?
This article is neutral - it does not give undue weight to one belief system, nor to one area of specialism or expertise. It covers all areas equally and without undue "over-referencing".

Is the article stable?
There are no evident or ongoing edit wars. The revision history reflects this. There are, however, many instances of edits by different users. However, this is offset by the fact that those users were adding extra information and correcting grammar and typographical errors. There is no evidence of editors arguing through constant reversal and re-reversal of each other's edits. Nor is there evidence of any arguments on the talkpage.

Illustations in the article
All images have captions, which adequately describe the subjects of the images. The copyright information is easily accessible. Images are relevant, as demonstrated by their placing in the article and captions.

Final judgement
I am happy to say that this article has FULLY PASSED ALL CRITERIA. I am happy to mark this page as a good article.