Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/George Town, Penang/1

George Town, Penang[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Withdrawn. Sounder Bruce 00:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this relatively recent GA promotion while seeking some decent examples of city articles, and found quite a few problems on a skim readthrough. There's several paragraphs and statements that lack sources, a lot of the written prose comes off as very basic and non-professional, and it has several lists and tables that aren't entirely appropriate for a main article (and should be moved to appropriate sub-articles). Sounder Bruce 04:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have rectified the problems pointed out by the reviewer. Allow me to go through each and every single one of the problems.

Moreover, the city hosts unique cultural heritage, such as the Peranakans, a hybrid ethnicity which has left its mark on Penang's architecture and cuisine.

I assume the hybrid ethnicity is that weasel phrase, so I removed it.

More investments were also made on the city's health care and public transportation.

What is so vague about this sentence? Based on the sources concerned, more health care facilities were built in the late 19th century, as was a tram system.

The haze season typically hits between July and October.

Removed unsourced prose.

Headquartered in the City Hall, the city council is responsible for urban planning, heritage preservation, public health, sanitation, waste management, traffic management, environmental protection, building control, social and economic development, and general maintenance of urban infrastructure.

I have added a reference - an organisation chart of the Penang Island City Council, from the council's website. In case you need some help understanding what it depicts, I could assist you on the translation.

Originally a variant of the Minnan dialect, over the centuries, Penang Hokkien has incorporated a large number of loanwords from Malay and English, yet another legacy of the Peranakan culture.

This is vague, but I assume the peacock part of the sentence is on the Peranakan legacy, so I removed that part of the sentence.

The full marathon route starts from near Queensbay Mall, then on to the 13.5 km (8.4 mi) length of the Penang Bridge, and finally back to the starting point for the finish.

Added ref.

The national and international sporting events that were held in George Town include the 2001 Southeast Asian Games and the 2013 Women's World Open Squash Championship.

Added refs

These international schools offer primary to secondary education up to A Levels and International Baccalaureate.

Removed

Singaporean drama series, The Little Nyonya and The Journey: Tumultuous Times, were also shot within the UNESCO zone. In addition, the city was one of the pit-stops of The Amazing Race 16, The Amazing Race Asia 4 and The Amazing Race Asia 5.

Added refs

Meanwhile, the city proper is also linked with the western parts of Penang Island, such as Balik Pulau, via the pan-island Federal Route 6.

Please refer to Malaysia Federal Route 6. A check on Google Maps also reveals that Federal Route 6 does circle the entire Penang Island.

Meanwhile, the only rail-based transportation system in George Town is the Penang Hill Railway, a funicular railway to the peak of Penang Hill.

As far as George Town is concerned, it does not have a single LRT, MRT or any form of rail-based transportation aside from the Penang Hill Railway. Anyway, I have rephrased the sentence entirely.

The airport is Malaysia's second busiest in terms of cargo traffic and recorded the third highest passenger traffic of all Malaysian airports as of 2013.

Added ref

These problems have been rectified as much as I could. But with regards to the tables, there is a lack of sub-articles on George Town or Penang as a whole. In fact, if you look at other GA articles like Kuala Lumpur, there are tables for radio FM stations as well, so it baffles me as to why that particular article is not nominated for reassessment, going by the prevailing logic. Vnonymous (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see this article was up for GA reassessment because a glance through it gives me the impression of a well-written, well-referenced article, and I didn't see any lists and tables I thought inappropriate. Perhaps @SounderBruce: could list the ones he is referring to, and add citation needed tags where he thinks necessary. My concern is that the article has been nominated for DYK because of its recent GA promotion, and for that to go ahead, this review will need to be resolved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Agreed. Do correct me if I am wrong, but according to the GA reassessment guideline, many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting. One of the reasons given for this article's reassessment was that the written prose comes off as very basic and non-professional. Is this reason by itself questionable? And if the George Town article has inappropriate lists and tables, how about Kuala Lumpur? Shouldn't it be nominated for reassessment too, given that it contains several tables and lists? Anyway, I have made significant edits by reducing the tables and lists on the George Town article. Vnonymous (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of a Good Article Reassessment is to get the article back to GA status if at all possible, and I see no reason why, after the work already done and whatever else needs doing, this shouldn't retain its GA status when this process is completed. A couple of points:

While the criterion for an FA is professional-level writing, the criterion for a GA is "clear and concise" prose (including correct grammar and spelling). The prose can be basic and meet that criterion (depending on the definition of "basic"). If there are unclear or excessively verbose sections, now's the time to point them out for improvement.
General compliance with the Manual of Style is not required (and should not be), but those MOS sections involving the lead, layout, words to watch, and embedded lists do need to be followed. (The one on fiction isn't relevant here.)

If SounderBruce can specify where the article falls short of the GA criteria after the recent updates, the article will be that much closer to where it needs to be. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw this reassessment, but I do have a few lingering concerns. The article has far too many images, some of which could be combined using {{multiple image}} or other collage templates; it's hard to read on a smaller screen and sections get cut off by the images. Otherwise, it now meets the minimum standard in the GA criteria. Sounder Bruce 00:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]