Talk:Bintulu/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TerribleTy27 (talk · contribs) 17:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, TerribleTy here, I will be reviewing this article, Everyday, I will update this page with recommendations, then its either pass or fail! TerribleTy27 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing this article. Cerevisae (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear TerribleTy27, it has been more than one week and nothing has happened. Please tell me when you are going to review the article. I am still waiting for you, thanks. Cerevisae (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I am so sorry for the wait, alot of stuff came up,and I didn't have the time to review. Today or tomorrow i'll wrap this up. TerribleTy27 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Congratulations, I've checked it against the criteria, and it passed! TerribleTy27 (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your help!, TerribleTy27. I am glad that it has passed the GA criteria! Cerevisae (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

TerribleTy27, Cerevisae, I just read the lead section of the article, and I do not see how it can possibly qualify under the good article criteria. There are significant prose and grammatical issues throughout, and it does not meet the lead section criteria, all of which are required in the "Well Written" section. For example:

• the location information is only in the lead; the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, Done and not include significant information that isn't in the rest of the article. Some further comments on the lead text:

• It is located at 610 kilometres northeast of Kuching. The "at" should be deleted. Done
• Bintulu is also located between Miri and Sibu which is 216 kilometres northeast of Sibu and 200 km southwest of Miri. This is an ungainly and unclear sentence. Better would be "Bintulu is also located 216 kilometres northeast of Sibu and 200 km southwest of Miri, between the two [towns/cities/whatever]." Even better might be to combine the two location sentences, or just have one here and the other in the body of the article. If all of these towns are on the coastline, as Bintulu is, that might also help to clarify matters. Done
• Bintulu was founded by Rajah James Brooke when he built a fort in the town. This doesn't make sense. If the town was there already, how could Brooke found it by building a fort in a pre-existing town? Was this when he named the place, perhaps? (The fort had a completely different name.) Done
• The construction of earliest airstrip in Bintulu began in 1934 but only completed in 1955 due to Japanese occupation. This is a confusing sentence: was it completed thanks to the Japanese during their occupation after remaining incomplete for 21 years? (Since the occupation ended by 1945, it's hard to see how.) Based on the Japanese occupation section, it would seem that the airstrip construction was still incomplete in 1938 when it was discontinued, yet the "Japanese made full use of the airport for military purposes" during the occupation, which would seem to indicate it was either complete enough or made complete enough by the Japanese so it could be used fully for their war effort. An eventual reconstruction in 1955 would seem to be something else entirely.
• Bintulu remains as a fishing village until 1969 when oil and gas reserves were discovered offshore Bintulu. Past tense should be used here—"remained a fishing village" rather than "remains as a"—and I'd recommend rephrasing "offshore Bintulu". Done
• Is there a reason that neither the article nor the lead mention that Bintulu is on the island of Borneo? Having the information inferred from the infobox is not sufficient. Done
• Articles such as "the" and "a" are frequently omitted from the text, and need to be added throughout. For example, the final sentence of the lead, Borneo International Kite Festival is held annually in the town. should start with "The". Done for this sentence. I will try to check for errors in the remaining part of the article. Cerevisae (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There are certainly similar issues with the body of the article, and there may be others; I haven't had time to check. TerribleTy27, given your short time here at Wikipedia, and especially given what Good Articles are and how to judge the criteria, I would advise you to gain much more experience writing and editing articles before taking on such a demanding task as reviewing good articles. Thank you for your attempt, but in the meantime, given the issues with your review and this article, I would strongly recommend that you reverse your passage of the article, since it clearly doesn't qualify at present, and let someone with more experience take over reviewing duties and determine how much actually needs to be done before it can qualify. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, BlueMoonset. I try to check the remaining part of the article for prose and grammatical errors before I submit it to Guild of copy editors. Cerevisae (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that reviewing this in the middle of the night was a bad idea. Thanks for the comment, i'll get to it ASAP. TerribleTy27 (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)