Jump to content

Talk:Sabah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Danazach (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 10 September 2024 (→Correcting Religious distribution in 1960: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sabah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NgYShung (talk · contribs) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status: checkY GA Passed. See comment below. NgYShung huh? 05:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Criteria Table

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. Appropriately tagged with {{EngvarB}} and on the article talk page.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. No doubt.
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. A ton of references (500+) had been given.
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). The sources were reliable for majority. Please note that some of them are dead (see checklinks result), I hope there are improvements after on.
2c. it contains no original research. I did not suspect any original research. Looks clear!
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Note for other user: At Earwig's copyvio detector it displays 60%, but it qualifies under fair use as it was used in quotation. see WP:COPYQUOTE.
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. I see some disputes over Talk:Sabah/Archive 2. And the article undergo a lot of editing by User:Molecule Extraction.
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. Quite tense as there are a lot of images in the article. If there is anything I did not notice, please comment down below.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. For majority of the criteria is approved, I would like to say the article, Sabah successfully passed through WP:GA?. It may even passed WP:FA, but there is still one step ahead for WP:FA?. I would like to see some of the references fixed, and be more stable by not edit too frequently. Other more experienced reviewers, if you think the article does not fit perfectly on good article criteria, feel free to reassess it.

Reviewer/Nominator comments

First look: Looks quite good at first sight. There is a red link in the article (which should be removed). Decorated with lots of picture. NgYShung huh? 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold 5+ days. Lack inline citation at the lead section. Try add more citation there from the current available references. See WP:LEADCITE. NgYShung huh? 09:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NgYShung, thanks for taking your time to review. About the lead citation, AFAIK based on the MoS guide as been stated here:

The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

That means only the very controversial part in the lead that really needs citation (for example such as in this article, the population numbers and the making of Islam as the official religion of this state) <-- this could still be disputed by some readers if the statement come without any reliable citation, especially if it come without government documents. I have see other past nominations in the GA nomination page before with the reviewer there telling to not using too much citation in the lead. Molecule Extraction (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out. But please cite "along with the threats of annexation from the Philippines which existed until today" at the lead section. The content biased a little and did not mentioned in the article. NgYShung huh? 10:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I write the part based from the citation here, from a book written by Hans H. Indorf in 1984. Will add this to the sentence now. :) Molecule Extraction (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two more citations [1], [2] for your understanding on the issues. Molecule Extraction (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Along with a book written by Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller. :) Molecule Extraction (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NgYShung: Thanks, but wouldn't this article should be checked for the grammar with a copyedit? Because I feel the English in this article still need to be corrected as I am not an English native contributor. Molecule Extraction (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note I'm not a native English speaker also. And also I think the other criteria outruns it. You can just be WP:BOLD and correct it, and maybe also contact the WP:GRAMMAR team. Regards, NgYShung huh? 06:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK then if like that, I just hope that any random copy editors passer-by will fix any grammatical errors in the article. So once again, thanks for reviewing! May the nature bless you always! Molecule Extraction (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other users comments

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Sabah. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sabah. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demography

The demography section was split off into a new article Demographics of Sabah, however, what was left is unsatisfactory. Please add a proper summary in this section, for example religious affiliations, ethnic groups, languages and other issues. It should not be detailed, and an extra paragraph or two of a few sentences each is sufficient, but it is nevertheless necessary. Hzh (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I will take some time in the near future to fix the issue. Molecule Extraction (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I hope the issue have been settled now. Feel free to make some more improvement if there were something that was missed out. Molecule Extraction (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. Hzh (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Religious distribution in 1960

The official government census in Sabah, page 22 of the North Borneo report stated only this: Religion The great majority of the Dusun and Murut peoples are pagan, while an equally large porportion of the coastal com munities are Muslim. The Chinese non Christian population generally adheres to Confucian ethics mixed with Buddhist beliefs. Roman Catholic, Church of England, Lutheran and other missions, both Pastoral and Evangelical, are active in the Colony.


How can you deduce from here, to 16.6% Christianity? Of course nonsense.

Of course, because it was sourced from a Christian Missionary in Singapore, who just made up this number. Someone deleted the source that I detected. Extracted from Caldora's book. It should be somewhere in the audit trail.

Also watering down the words of large proportion to just majority.

The only mention of Christianity is just "active". Othmanskn (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was based on British North Borneo census that they conducted every decade since 1921. It is difficult to get the softcopy in google book, just some snippet, maybe you can refer it in one of the library in the country. https://www.google.com.my/books/edition/Report_on_the_Census_of_Population_Taken/MuEgAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Number+Percentage+of+Total+Population+Religion+1921+*+1931+*+1951+1960+1921+*+1931+*+1951+1960+Christian+Muslim+Other+Religion+6,980+10,454+29,092+75,247+81,886+86,713+115,126+172,324+168,938+173,056+189,923+206,850+2.7+3.9+8.7+16.6%22&dq=%22Number+Percentage+of+Total+Population+Religion+1921+*+1931+*+1951+1960+1921+*+1931+*+1951+1960+Christian+Muslim+Other+Religion+6,980+10,454+29,092+75,247+81,886+86,713+115,126+172,324+168,938+173,056+189,923+206,850+2.7+3.9+8.7+16.6%22&printsec=frontcover Danazach (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sabah&oldid=1245010198"