Talk:Gunungsitoli/GA2

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 22:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this nomination—I'll take up to a week to get round to it. This review will be used for Wikicup points. Please consider reviewing an article yourself—the backlog is long, and the WP:GAN list promotes nominators with a good reviewing score. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * AGF on sourcing (I don't speak Indonesian) because google translate seems mostly ok.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Sources are in Indonesian, so CLOP or PLAG impossible.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Captions could be improved. I note that issues raised in the last GA review have not been resolved. Grammar/precision is low.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A fairly good article—I'll do a copyedit run-through before promotion. All the ingredients for a GA are here. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No response, so I'll have to fail this nomination. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Captions could be improved. I note that issues raised in the last GA review have not been resolved. Grammar/precision is low.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A fairly good article—I'll do a copyedit run-through before promotion. All the ingredients for a GA are here. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No response, so I'll have to fail this nomination. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No response, so I'll have to fail this nomination. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * The governance section doesn't need three separate subsections (see MOS:OVERSECTION). The table in the politics section would work better as prose—it doesn't really say anything.
 * The agriculture and industries sections could be combined.
 * The same goes for the tourism and landmarks sections.
 * The grammar is rather wonky, but as I said, I'll do a general copyedit. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)