Talk:Gunungsitoli

Language

I have done a quick copy edit and found the quality of writing to be quite good. Coherent, informative, grammatical, and to the point. A pleasant read. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much~ ^^ Nyanardsan (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gunungsitoli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've just seen the nominator's request to take a no-exceptions 1 year break from Wikipedia, and to therefore fail all their current GA nominations. If I was in a position to pass this article with minimal changes, I would implement them myself, but unfortunately I think this article needs more work than that and so it will not pass right now. I look forward to welcoming the nominator back and possibly reviewing this article again in a year! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues, pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Most sources are non-English and translated, so chance of direct copyvio is slim. Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues with stability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Provisional pass; just one question. I see that many of the images are taken by the local city government - as Indonesia is a unitary state, I assume this means they are public-domain because there is no copyright distinction between the "Government of Indonesia" (nationwide) and any local government authority, correct?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	What is Adu Zatua? If not explained in text it should be explained or linked in the image caption. 1970s boom grammar issue: should be "saw a short-lived tourism boom" not "seen a short-lived tourist boom", infrastructure should be singular Substitute in "US Navy personnel together with Indonesian army troops at Binaka Airport following the 2005 earthquake" "Traditional Nias attire. Ethnic Nias..." rather than "Nias people" Remove "the city has a significant population of..." "the main hospital"
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gunungsitoli/GA2. 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:

2. 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—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.

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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.

7. 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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.