Talk:Banjarmasin/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this one - I hope to start this review today or tomorrow. eviolite (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Layout/structure is good, I fixed some obvious typos and as a whole the prose is good. I am unclear what certain phrases like sex ratio without knowing the dominant/minority sex etc.. and I thought baseline was 1, not 100, so am not familiar with the specific system. Similarly, there are still many grammar mistakes. I tried to fix some, but it's a lot still. Perhaps WP:Guild of copy-editors or WP:INDONESIA could help?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Generally my lack of Indonesian is a major issue. I noticed some links like this one used in Banjarmasin#Media section don't load e.g. [1]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Absolutely
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It covers several contentious topics and is written quite neutrally/balanced
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Yup to best of my assesment
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Eviolite let me know if you want to review it still, I was about to review it myself but happy to let you take over. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - just posted to your talk page to the same extent, I haven't started yet but if you have anything already (looks like you've already read the article and edited it a bit) feel free to comment them, otherwise I might not get to this until tomorrow due to the article's length and because it's late anyway. eviolite (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General review[edit]

Out of the 200 sources, nearly 50 are from go.id (Indonesian government) domains, it's hard to say whether this is excessive or reasonable without knowing Indonesian.

Grammar and quality of sourcing are main two concerns. In terms of coverage/broad scope/depth of the different topics, it does a really great job. With a little more work, this will be Good Article status. Happy copyediting! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah Thank you so much for the review.

May I know specificially which source of go.id that is your concern so I can explain, replace, or improve the quality of the said source? Since most of the sources as far as I remember were from Statistics Indonesia or the website of the city government itself.

On grammar front, I will try to improve it and ask my friends offwiki to help me so I will try to fix the grammar as soon as possible.

Again, thanks for reviewing it and I will address your concerns on the article as soon as I could~ Nyanardsan (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nyanardsan nice work on the grammar and addressing the specific issues I mentioned. I'll enclose three examples of sourcing, that I think could be improved for clarity:

There are 24 formally registered radio stations, although the number could be higher. this references an archived source [2] however the search filter for Kota Banjarmasin isn't archived. The current website today shows 21 registered radio stations, but it would be nice to make it clearer that this is a primary source/government website and not an analytical article. That said, I am generally fine with the approach taken here. Filling in the publisher field/translated title would help others discern what this is, and editing the statement to be explicit "According to the Indonesian Ministry of Culture, as of 2021 there are 21 registered radio stations"
Too many different sources use conflate the publisher BPS Kota Banjarmasin, with the title. For example [3] would be better off titled as Nama Pasar yang Terdaftar di Pemerintahan Kota Banjarmasin and a year included (2013) to distinguish it from the following example
[4] should have title Kota Banjarmasin Dalam Angka and its year 2021
[5] should have Indikator Ekonomi Kota Banjarmasin and the year 2019 to help distinguish the three different sources all published by the same statistics office.

[6] title of source should be Pasar Terapung, Wisata Bisnis di Atas Sungai not its publisher JPNN

Once these are fixed (along with similar source title issues), I am happy to mark this article as GA. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the reference issues, please take a look now. Apologize for a bit of a delay. Thank you for the review Nyanardsan (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah Apologize for the ping ;; Is there any additional issues need to be addressed? Nyanardsan (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second review[edit]

Since Shushugah is not actively contributing, I can do a second review for the article. I'll add my comments withing a day or two. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"an estimated population of 657,663" — you say 'estimated', then give the data in precision of ones!
"8,136 square kilometres (3,141 sq mi)" — 'square kilometres' is not abbreviated, 'sq mi' is. Consistency needed.
"On 15 February 2022, the capital of South Kalimantan province was legally moved" — repeated information.
Various instances of MOS:SANDWICH in the history section.
"50 kilometres (31 mi)" — Consistency required whether the united need to be abbreviated or not.
"the first and 15th centuries" — either '1st and 15th', or 'first and fifteenth'
"the argument for it is based on several carved stone tombs and a Ma'anyan folk song called "Usak Jawa", which is thought to tell the story of the Majapahit conquest of the kingdom." — citation? and who speculated this?
"The history of Banjarmasin itself began ... topped sending tributes to Java" paragraphs could take a good copy edit to better the flow.
"the city was occupied by Japanese forces under the Imperial Japanese Army." — "the city was occupied by the Imperial Japanese Army." would suffice.
"The process continued until 2011" — 1949 till 2011!?
Various terms are over linked.
- South Kalimantan
- Banjar people
- Port of Trisakt
- BRT Banjarbakula
That brings me to "Geography" section

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh thank you for taking over 2nd review! Friendly ping to Nyanardsan to look at the above feedback! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh

Apologies for the late reply~ I think I want to withdraw this nomination for now as I can not expect myself to edit frequently in near future due to my college schedule. I will renominate it maybe sometime later, but as for now I will withdraw it. Thank you so much for reviewing it. Nyanardsan (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Nomination withdrawn. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]