Login
Login

Talk:Tamparuli/GA1

GA review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Tamparuli/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Tamparuli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|NikoUMS}} 03:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Unfortunately, this is a quick fail.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
  2. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|n}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|n}}
  3. :: Many of the sentences in the lead section suffer from WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASEL. For example, the lead says, {{tq|The town is recognised for its food}}—who is giving the recognition here? The citations for that statement points to [https://www.mysabah.com/wordpress/jambatan-tamparuli-the-most-famous-bridge-of-sabah/], which is some random WordPress travel guide that does not appear to be a reliable source as it is user-generated content. Another example, {{tq|Tamparuli is said to have the potential to grow}}: who says that? There are also a few minor grammatical issues I could see—I recommend having someone else do a copyedit of the article (perhaps from WP:GOCE) to fix grammatical issues before nominating at GA again.
  4. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
  5. :a (reference section): {{GAList/check|}} b (inline citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|n}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|n}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|}}
  6. :: The references are the most serious problem with this article. I recommend reading all of WP:RS again and making sure you understand what Wikipedia treats as reliable. Facebook, Blogspot.com, Wordpress.com—these are all user-generated websites and thus are not reliable. Additionally, there are parts of the article that are completely unreferenced at the moment, such as the first paragraph of the "Flood" section and "Geography" section.
  7. It is broad in its coverage.
  8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|}}
  9. :: I am somewhat surprised that the "History" section is only two paragraphs, compared to the "Tourist attractions" section, which is significantly longer. Is there really not more reliably sourced history to this town that we could share?
  10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|n}}
  12. :: Similar to criterion 1b, the article needs to be more careful about WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASEL. For example, describing the location in Wikipedia's voice as "picturesque" likely violates WP:NPOV, as does describing the Tamparuli Suspension Bridge as "iconic" or "famous". These sorts of labels need in-text attribution.
  13. It is stable.
  14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
  15. ::
  16. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
  17. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): {{GAList/check|}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|}}
  18. :: Images seem okay, except for the one in the "Entertainment" section: :File:Poster Teater Muzikal Munduk Ruhiang yang dipersembahkan oleh pelajar dari Universiti Malaysia Sabah.png. This one seems to have been published by Universiti Malaysia Sabah, and the copyright might be owned by the university and not the uploader.
  19. Overall:
  20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|n}}
  21. :: By far the most important thing this article needs is a thorough review of the cited sources. We need to replace any citations to unreliable sources (all of the Facebook, Blogspot.com, Wordpress.com sources, to start), or remove content based on unreliable sources, and we need to add citations for any unsourced content. Mz7 (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)