Talk:Sabah

Sabah has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 24, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sabah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Malaysia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Southeast Asia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Text and/or other creative content from Sarawak was copied or moved into Sabah. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Sabah sultan followers take fight to cyberspace". Agence France-Presse. 4 March 2013. Retrieved 5 March 2013.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Electrical grid#Interconnectors|Electricity interconnection]] The anchor (#Interconnectors) has been deleted. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Section sizes Section size for Sabah (39 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 18,654 18,654 Etymology 6,110 6,110 History 41 56,118 Prehistory 3,315 3,315 Sultanates of Brunei and Sulu influences 17,417 17,417 British North Borneo 10,232 10,232 Second World War 8,411 8,411 British crown colony 2,882 2,882 Malaysia 13,820 13,820 Politics 16 23,140 Government 16,023 16,023 Administrative division 7,101 7,101 Security 5,546 24,475 Territorial disputes 18,929 18,929 Geography 14,121 40,107 Biodiversity 13,534 25,986 Conservation issues 12,452 12,452 Economy 25,172 25,172 Infrastructure 5,367 75,835 Energy and water resources 17,376 17,376 Telecommunication and broadcasting 18,664 18,664 Transportation 19,831 19,831 Healthcare 3,656 3,656 Education 10,941 10,941 Demography 49 16,068 Ethnicity and immigration 6,035 6,035 Religion 5,432 5,432 Languages 4,552 4,552 Culture 7,076 43,123 Fine arts and crafts 7,443 7,443 Cuisine 7,567 7,567 Portrayal in media 14,259 14,259 Holidays and festivals 5,284 5,284 Sports 1,494 1,494 International relations 2,351 2,351 See also 75 75 Notes 41 41 References 35 35 External links 974 974 Total 332,278 332,278

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

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.

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]