Talk:Cheok Hong Cheong/GA1

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

Reviewer: I'ma editor2022 (talk · contribs) 21:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Introduction
Hello🙋‍♂️! I'll be reviewing this article to see if it complies with tthe GA criteria. The process of reviewing the article may take several days (although unlikely). Remember when replying or commenting pls @ or ping me, as I probably won't be checking  every hour. Or, alternatively, you can always chat on my talk page.

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Issues:
 * "His father, Cheong Peng-nam, arrived in Victoria in 1854" needs to be changed to "His father, Cheong Peng-nam, arrived in Victoria, Australia in 1854" for clarification purposes since the country Australia has not been previously referred to.
 * Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Cheong was born...His father, Cheong Peng-nam...Cheong [who? Which one?] had two sisters" needs to be revised for clarification.
 * Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * " He was survived by six of his children." This needs clarification. Maybe rephrase it to "His lineage was carried by six of his children" ? However the article states he had 7 children so that statement definitely needs clarification.
 * Indeed he had 7 children and was survived by 6 children (he was predeceased by one)--but I am synthesising two sources and the fact doesn't seem so significant on second thought, so I've removed that line altogether, if that's alright. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kingoflettuce: That's alright, and thank you for addresing it. :) —Remember, I'murmate — I&#39;ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 &#124;📖📚) 04:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this [|sentence] has so much repititive citations, that needs to be decluttered. Or why this sentence has 3 inline citations in just one sentence. Although not necessary for GA status, you may want to look at WP:CITEKILL and in this case, WP:REPCITE, for future references:).
 * A) I thought it'd show exactly which bit of the sentence is backed up by which specific part of a specific source. Have lumped both at the end of the sentence instead. B) Similar reasoning, although in this case no pages are repeated. I always thought it was better to directly cite which specific parts were backed up by what. Since you say it's not necessary I have left that as it is. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And respectfully, I think WP:INTEGRITY applies here ("nor does it apply when multiple sources support different parts of a paragraph or passage.") I must admit I never looked it up until today, just intuitively thought that had to be the case. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, you have a point. They are relatively minor, and not necessary issues. I never actually read WP:INTEGRITY before, so thank you for referencing it. —Remember, I'murmate — I&#39;ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 &#124;📖📚) 04:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Comply with all.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Complies with all.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * All citations come from reliable sources.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Almost all sentences, however this sentence needs an inline citation
 * Ironically, REPCITE is relevant HERE, since Lake 2013, p.49 supports both sentences so there's no need to inline cite it twice... Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you for correcting me! I don't really have acess to the source so it's good to know that. —Remember, I'murmate — I&#39;ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 &#124;📖📚) 04:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

># Overall: " hey, really appreciate the speedy review, I think the changes needed to be made were relatively minor. Hope all's good now! :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * None found
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Addresses the main aspects of the subject, although a short article
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Article is short and concise.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Article gives due weight to subject
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Article is stable and hasn't been the victim of vandalism (VOV) for atleast the last month, nor has any edit warring occured
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Yes
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Has relevant captioning.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Please address the following issues above, and remember when commenting please ping me :)


 * @Kingoflettuce: You're welcome! I'll pass this since changes met were adequate (hey that ryhmes!)). —Remember, I'murmate — I&#39;ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 &#124;📖📚) 04:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)