Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kota Kinabalu/1
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.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delist on lack of up-to-date material, and lack of citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
A GA from 2013. Some material is uncited and needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delist Not only uncited material, but a reliance on unreliable and promotional sources. Article needs to be rewritten. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- The unsourced text appears small within the scope of the article, and should be dealt with through tagging and regular editing before a GAR is initiated. Out of the 170 sources, how many are promotional enough to be problematic in this use case, and could they be tagged/removed? CMD (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Most of the culture and leisure section is problematic. From initial inspections, I think source-text integrity is very low in the section, in addition to it containing lots of trivia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could you tag the items you inspected so it is easier for other editors to follow up? I also find the section a bit trivia-filled, but that is what is expected from such sections. It does not seem much worse than say Altrincham or Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory. CMD (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'll try to get to that later. I am willing to bet that the two articles you have cited, despite both being 15 (!) year old FAs, have a text-to-source integrity of over 90%; I would be very surprised if sections of this article reached 50%. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Text-source integrity is a separate issue to trivia, no models of other articles save that. Just found Talk:Kota Kinabalu/GA2, not the most thorough review. CMD (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'll try to get to that later. I am willing to bet that the two articles you have cited, despite both being 15 (!) year old FAs, have a text-to-source integrity of over 90%; I would be very surprised if sections of this article reached 50%. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Most of the culture and leisure section is problematic. From initial inspections, I think source-text integrity is very low in the section, in addition to it containing lots of trivia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delist - like many city articles, it contains outdated information. For instance, saying that something is in development with a 2007 source. Needs some TLC before it meets the GA criteria again. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:32, 22 January 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.