Talk:Penang/GA1

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

Reviewer: Semi-auto (talk · contribs) 18:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm taking this one and will sort this out ASAP. Thanks! Semi-auto (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My take on this page: it meets most of the GA criteria, bar a few sentences which lack citations. The sentences requiring citations have been tagged with the citation needed template. The page seems ready to be considered a GA, but these should be resolved first before I can safely pass this page's review. Semi-auto (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks alot for reviewing the Penang article! As per your recommendations, I have added references.


 * A resident of Penang is colloquially known as a Penangite or Penang Lâng (in Penang Hokkien). ✅
 * Comment: I am unable to find any reliable evidence that a resident of Penang is called Penangkaran in Tamil, hence I omitted that part of the prose for the lack of citation.
 * The Port's strategic location enabled it to service not just northern Malaysia, but also southern Thailand. ✅
 * ... free-of-charge transit services within the George Town city centre and its adjacent suburb of Pulau Tikus, known as CAT (Central Area Transit) and PTL (Pulau Tikus Loop) respectively. ✅
 * The SPICE Arena is also one of the major venues in Penang for meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions (MICE). ✅


 * Do let me know of other methods to improve this article. Thanks again. Vnonymous (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. In my opinion there are far too many images in this article for its length. I'm all in favour of well illustrated articles, and a lot of the work I do at WP is image related, but this does seem excessive to me. Per Manual_of_Style/Images, "avoid sand­wich­ing text between two images that face each other; or be­tween an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar." but in this article maybe 2/3 of it is "sandwiched" in this way. When we were bringing Malaysia to GA we worked on a very rough rule of thumb of 2 or 3 images per section - that would mean this article should have between roughly 30 to an absolute maximum of 45. It has around 70! (which is why so much sandwiching occurs - to cram them in). -- Begoon 15:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I have removed some of the non-essential images in the article, reducing the number of images to 42. Vnonymous (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It does look better now. I know it's always hard to decide which images to exclude, but it's worth it for the finished result. The more relevant images will get more attention if the reader isn't overloaded with a zillion graphics. There's still a bit of text "sandwiching" going on, which might be nice to address, but as I say it is much better now. You've done good work on this article, by the way - it's a far superior read now to when I looked at it a few months ago. -- Begoon 16:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much :). I have just addressed the sandwiching text somewhat too. Vnonymous (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You're welcome and thanks for being very responsive to the comments. I'm more than satisfied with the improvements made to the page now, so I'm passing this review. Congratulations. Semi-auto (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, guys! Vnonymous (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)