Talk:Johor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm beginning my review of this article for GA status. I'll be using the template below as I work through the process. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2019 (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.	Overall very good. Some notes starting with the lead: Lead second paragraph: The first two sentences are unclear. "The state" implies some government, which is not described. "the demise of the kingdom" is therefore confusing and could refer to either Funan or the aforementioned state. Clarify/rework. Y Remove "the" from "the Portuguese rule" - replaced "restore" with "restored" Y Last sentence of second paragraph of lead is a little long / confusing - break into two sentences and rework for clarity. Y Usually not necessary to have citations in the lead (last paragraph) Y , citation moved to section below In 'Second World War', last paragraph, in "was a demand for the Sultan to surrendered his power" - 'surrender' should replace 'surrendered'. Y In 'Post-war and independence', second paragraph, 'accept' should be 'accepted'. Y Generally check for verb tense - present vs. past. I may have missed some. In 'Security', remove/rework parenthetical re: Sarawak Rangers - awkwardly phrased. Y Why is the sentence in 'Cuisine' about Johor-based companies that promote state drinks in there? What is a state drink? Either expand or remove. Y , removed Last sentence of 'Sports', "Other" should be "Another" Y Again - overall, very good. Pass. Issues addressed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues found.
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.	Clear citation needed in first paragraph of economy re: 2015 GDP. Y Clear citation needed in 'Air' travel section re: airports Y In 'Languages', either cite first claim (re: bilingualism) or remove. Y I think you can remove the [citation needed] tag in the first sentence of 'Culture' - that claim is pretty well supported by cited facts in the history and demographics sections and later in 'culture'. Y You can remove the citation needed on the last sentence in 'Sports' if you remove 'notable', or cite the claim that Pasir Gudang Corporation stadium is notable. Y Pass. Issues addressed.
	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).	Pass. No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No issues. All sections are well-cited - no evident original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	History section has latest items in 1966. Not much coverage of recent history. Without recentism, perhaps something from last 50 years could be added about Johor's history within Malaysia. Y , further addition, especially on its development Pass. Issues addressed, though this section could still use expansion.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. The only possible area of overly detailed description is in the 'Infrastructure', but this is not excessive - really a matter of opinion. Other than that, good.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. No issues here. History and politics scrutinized especially closely, but no problems found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Only occasional and minor changes since nomination. No edit wars etc. Pass.
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.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well chosen, plentiful, and diverse selection of images well-captioned. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Most of the issues have been addressed now. Cheers! Molecule Extraction (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Molecule Extraction, Thanks for going through it! I did a final check for prose and WP:Bold fixed a couple things. Your changes / additions all look good. I'll do a final run-through of the review shortly. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This article has passed! I'll do the needful now and congrats to Molecule Extraction and everyone else who worked on it! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Yay! I want to thank you too for making several phrasing towards the article! Thank you so much! Molecule Extraction (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)