Talk:Pahang/GA1

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

Reviewer: OCL97 (talk · contribs) 00:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Can see this has been nominated a looong time and still hasn't been reviewed, so I'm giving it a go. First impression is it's a really long article, so it could take a while to get through, should be able to give some notes in a couple of hours or so. OCL97 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I have some concerns that mean I don't think this can be passed as a good article until some substantial changes are made.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are a substantial number of grammatical errors throughout the article. I will try to provide a list of as many examples as I can find below, but I can't guarantee I'll find all of them because it is such a large article. I also think there are some parts of the article which violate MOS:WTW, particularly the Tourism section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I think there are some questionable sources used, particularly in the tourism section. I'll go through them more systematically if I have time and the article looks close to passing. There are sections (specifically the ethnicity, languages and culture sections) that don't seem to have enough citations in them and I'm worried that some of the content might verge on WP:OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article definitely covers all the main topics at least somewhat, but I think it does so in unnecessary detail. It has 80 kB of prose size when WP:TOOBIG recommends splitting when it's over 50 kB. There is definitely a number of sections that could be split off into their own articles, in particular the History section. Also speaking of the History section, it seems to have a good amount of detail on everything up to the first half of the 20th century, but nothing after that aside from becoming part of Malaysia. Is there more that could be added here? A lot is mentioned in the rest of the article about the government's recent projects in Pahang, but nothing in the History section about them, which I find a bit odd.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The tourism section has a lot of puffery and some of it isn't written from a neutral point of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images are fine except for the first image (the Mao Kun map) which still needs a US public domain tag.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, I'm going to have to fail this article. My main concerns are size, sources, grammar and the potential POV wording in the tourism section. I've given some specifics that could be improved below, but the article as a whole needs a good WP:COPYEDIT, which could take some time given its size. I definitely think there's enough material to split and create a History of Pahang article if you want to, and potentially make a couple of other splits. There are a number of ways you could reduce the size of the article, like taking out information that's not specific to Pahang or cutting out redundancies (a lot of things are mentioned twice almost verbatim).
 * Overall, I'm going to have to fail this article. My main concerns are size, sources, grammar and the potential POV wording in the tourism section. I've given some specifics that could be improved below, but the article as a whole needs a good WP:COPYEDIT, which could take some time given its size. I definitely think there's enough material to split and create a History of Pahang article if you want to, and potentially make a couple of other splits. There are a number of ways you could reduce the size of the article, like taking out information that's not specific to Pahang or cutting out redundancies (a lot of things are mentioned twice almost verbatim).

Lead section
A lot of minor grammatical mistakes:


 * "Pahang's capital and largest city, Kuantan, is the eighth largest urban agglomerations by population in Malaysia." should be "agglomeration".
 * "Pekan was also the old state capital which its name translates literally into 'the town', it was known historically as 'Inderapura'." "which" isn't the right word here, maybe write as "Pekan was also the old state capital, and its name translates..."
 * "Other major towns include Temerloh, Bentong and its hills resorts of Genting Highlands and Bukit Tinggi." This sentence makes it sound like Genting Highlands is a town, probably needs to be rephrased.
 * "The state religion of Pahang is Islam, but grants freedom to manifest other religions in its territory." Who grants that freedom? Islam or Pahang? Also the word manifest is vague here. Do they grant freedom to specific other religions, or is it just freedom of religion for everyone?
 * "Pahang is categorised as medium ethnically diverse state with 0.36 of ethnic diversity index in 2010." Should be "Pahang is categorised as a medium ethnically diverse state with an ethnic diversity index of 0.36 in 2010."
 * "Archaeological evidences revealed the existence of human habitation in the area that is today Pahang from as early as the paleolithic age." Should probably start as "Archaeological evidence has revealed..."
 * "On 16 September 1963, the Malayan federation are being merged into a more larger federation of the Federation of Malaysia" using the words "are being" here is the wrong tense, probably should be "were" instead. Also using "more larger" is redundant, should just be "larger".
 * "The federation was opposed by neighbouring Indonesia, which led to the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation over three years along with the continuous war against local Communist insurgents." this sentence doesn't feel like it specifically relates to Pahang unless Pahang was specifically important to this conflict, and there's no mention of the confrontation anywhere else in the article.

There's a couple of other mistakes as well but I'm still trying to figure out the right way to phrase them. OCL97 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity section

 * "In 2016, it is ranked 59th most ethnically diverse countries in the world with index at 0.596." should change to past tense (it was ranked the 59th most ethnically diverse country) and also specify what index is being used here. You probably don't need to go through the relative diversity of every Malaysian state in this paragraph.
 * The sources in the second paragraph come from 1973 and 1989, but the previous paragraph said that the ethnicity of Pahang has changed significantly since then. Are there more recent sources that talk about this kind of information?
 * "Other important Malay sub-ethnicities include the Kelantanese and Kedahans, that migrated from Kelantan and Kedah respectively, and can be found in major urban centres and agricultural settlements." having feels redundant "that migrated from Kelantan and Kedah" feels redundant, and there is no source for this sentence.
 * "The minorities consist of Chinese and Indians form collectively about 19.5% of the population. They are descendants of immigrants from China and India that came in large numbers during British protectorate to work in the mines, rubber plantations and various services sector. They are primarily concentrated in the western districts of Raub and Bentong and other urban areas." no source is provided for this paragraph. Where does the information come from? OCL97 (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Tourism section
A grammatical mistake:

"with Genting Highlands and Kuantan, remain the top destinations." should be "with Genting Highlands and Kuantan remaining the top destinations."

This paragraph is definitely not written from a neutral point of view, and I'm also worried that there is no specific citation for this information:

"Blessed with richness in biodiversity, Pahang offers ecotourism in all its forms. From highlands and rainforests to islands and beaches, it showcases the best of such attractions in the world. Conventional tourism along the coast occurs mainly on the coastline north of Kuantan, where there are famous beach towns like Cherating, Batu Hitam and Beserah. Tioman Island is Pahang's prime island resource. The waters round the entire island and Seri Buat Island groups, totalling nine islands, are gazetted marine parks."

The following paragraph also has POV issues, and the fact that all of it is cited to the Tourism Malaysia website isn't helpful. Are there reliable sources about these places that don't come from Tourism Malaysia? Also the use of & instead of "and" doesn't occur anywhere else in the article, and I don't think it should be used here. OCL97 (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)