Talk:Banjarbaru

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Banjarbaru Flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 02:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Looks good to me after some minor copy-editing of my own.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Same as above.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Banjarbaru#References	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources look reliable to me, especially plenty of government sources.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyvio or plagiarism from what I can see.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Seems like everything important has been covered.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
I definitely don't see any NPOV issues here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
While there have been some changes made pretty recently, I see no signs of edit warring or disputes.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Couldn't find actual license for image of Q Mall, see #Q Mall Image, all looks good now.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Looks fantastic to me!	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Great article, had some issues with licensing with one or two or the photos but all looks good to me now, marking this article as GA!

Discussion

Q Mall Image

@Nyanardsan: See my comment in 6a, please respond in this section when you have a chance. Bsoyka✉ 14:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Right, so the mall image is apparently not exist inside the video itself, only a thumbnail (i previously assumed it was). I nominated the image for deletion and changed it to another image that exist inside the video source with appropriate licensing. I hope thats fixed now. Nyanardsan (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanardsan: I don't think the problem is it being from the thumbnail rather than the video itself – I'm saying I don't see any evidence that the video is under a CC license at all. For example, the video would have a CC tag on the search results page, which I don't see. Bsoyka🗣️ 23:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I will re-review all images on this page, does that mean I should withdrawn the nomination first? Sorry for late respond. Thanks Nyanardsan (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanardsan: In that case, I'll just put the nomination on hold for up to a week to give you time to review the licensing for all those – no need to withdraw the nomination unless you don't think you can get that fixed up within about 7 days. Other than this discussion, all looks good to me! Bsoyka🗣️ 03:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ^^ Ill do it ASAP Nyanardsan (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've done it and i believe all images are appropriate now. Please review it, thanks ^^ Nyanardsan (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks great now, thanks for fixing it! Bsoyka🗣️ 05:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)