Talk:Palangka Raya
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Palangka Raya was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 27, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Palangka Raya (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 3 May 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Palangkaraya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130921054125/http://www.kemendagri.go.id/pages/profil-daerah/kabupaten/id/62/name/kalimantan-tengah/detail/6271/kota-palangka-raya to http://www.kemendagri.go.id/pages/profil-daerah/kabupaten/id/62/name/kalimantan-tengah/detail/6271/kota-palangka-raya
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Palangka Raya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you @Ganesha811, Im looking forward for the review! :) Nyanardsan (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nyanardsan, hi! I'm still going through the review, but I wanted to alert you that both the prose check and the source reliability check are turning up issues. These, in combination with some of the problems I've laid out in 2a and 6a, mean that the article is not in a position to pass GA right now. I also have concerns about 3a, breadth - it seems to me that there are aspects of the page that could use more comprehensive coverage. All of these problems are fixable, though, so I wanted to ask - how much time will you have to dedicate to this article? I can either continue the review and fail it for now, or I could put it on hold and give you a little longer to improve it (say two weeks). Which would you prefer? Ganesha811 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I would prefer it to be on hold and fix all the issues. Yes, two weeks please. Thank you Nyanardsan (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nyanardsan, ok, I'll put it on hold. I'll also put some more detail on the prose and source reliability check down below so you have that to work on as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I would prefer it to be on hold and fix all the issues. Yes, two weeks please. Thank you Nyanardsan (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: Hi, i'd like to withdrawn the nomination for now since i just found sources on economic of the city and also its history after 1965(regarding involvement of Soviet armed forces). City's history between 1970s up to 2010s is relatively calm and uneventful,nothing worth mentioning, but since I find significant information missing, this article would have some more expansion. Thank you Nyanardsan (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Alright - I'll fail the article for now. I'm glad you're expanding it. Whenever you re-nominate it for GA, ping me and I'll be happy to volunteer to review it again. Happy writing until then! Ganesha811 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nyanardsan, hi! I'm still going through the review, but I wanted to alert you that both the prose check and the source reliability check are turning up issues. These, in combination with some of the problems I've laid out in 2a and 6a, mean that the article is not in a position to pass GA right now. I also have concerns about 3a, breadth - it seems to me that there are aspects of the page that could use more comprehensive coverage. All of these problems are fixable, though, so I wanted to ask - how much time will you have to dedicate to this article? I can either continue the review and fail it for now, or I could put it on hold and give you a little longer to improve it (say two weeks). Which would you prefer? Ganesha811 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2021 (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. |
|
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. |
Some of the references are a little bare or require more information.
In general, where possible, please add translated titles to all references not in English - the sources being in Indonesian is fine, but since this is en-wikipedia, it's of use to the readers to be able to understand their titles. There is an attribute for trans-title within normal references, but let me know if you have a question about how to do that. |
![]() |
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
File:Lambang Kota Palangka Raya.gif needs a US copyright tag in addition to the Indonesian one. Same with File:Coat of arms of Central Kalimantan.png. I am unconvinced that File:Sukarno_in_Palangka_Raya.jpg is provably in the public domain - the tag says it is a work of the Indonesian government, but the attribution links back to an article which links to a YouTube documentary which does not describe the source. In any case it is a low-quality image and the article would be fine without it, so I think it should be removed. File:Palangkaraya_Haze.jpg has an unusual copyright tag and the source link is broken (404) - needs fixing or removal. File:Palangka Raya at night.jpg needs a US copyright tag. In addition, while it is found on a government blog, are we sure it was taken by a government employee? File:Darussalam Grand Mosque Palangka Raya.jpg needs a US copyright tag. File:PalangkaRaya BRT Bus.jpg needs a US copyright tag. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Prose
[edit]Hey there @Nyanardsan: :),
I've just started working my way through the article cleaning up the prose for you. I'll finish the job tomorrow! Xx78900 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Geography
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Geography
- B-Class vital articles in Geography
- B-Class Indonesia articles
- Mid-importance Indonesia articles
- WikiProject Indonesia articles
- B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review