Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kota Kinabalu/1

Kota Kinabalu

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Kota_Kinabalu/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist on lack of up-to-date material, and lack of citations. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A GA from 2013. Some material is uncited and needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delist Not only uncited material, but a reliance on unreliable and promotional sources. Article needs to be rewritten. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The unsourced text appears small within the scope of the article, and should be dealt with through tagging and regular editing before a GAR is initiated. Out of the 170 sources, how many are promotional enough to be problematic in this use case, and could they be tagged/removed? CMD (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the culture and leisure section is problematic. From initial inspections, I think source-text integrity is very low in the section, in addition to it containing lots of trivia. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you tag the items you inspected so it is easier for other editors to follow up? I also find the section a bit trivia-filled, but that is what is expected from such sections. It does not seem much worse than say Altrincham or Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory. CMD (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to that later. I am willing to bet that the two articles you have cited, despite both being 15 (!) year old FAs, have a text-to-source integrity of over 90%; I would be very surprised if sections of this article reached 50%. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Text-source integrity is a separate issue to trivia, no models of other articles save that. Just found Talk:Kota Kinabalu/GA2, not the most thorough review. CMD (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delist - like many city articles, it contains outdated information. For instance, saying that something is in development with a 2007 source. Needs some TLC before it meets the GA criteria again. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)