Talk:Kampoeng Rawa/GA1

GA Review

Article promoted 21:58, 22 July 2014

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

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 02:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I'm taking this GA review. I will do my first read-through and my initial review should be posted in the morning. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looking forward to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

In the lead the sentence starting "Facilities include..." seems like a run on. My opinion is that it should end after "dock" and start a new sentence with "during"

The "and" makes it not a run-on, but split. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add a period at the end of the caption of the image under the Location and facilities section. And add a period ad the end of the caption in the first image.

Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What direction (NESW) can visitors have a view of the mountains?
- South. Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A variety of activities are available onsite, including ATVs, flying fox, jet skis, and fishing." 3/4 of those are not activities but are objects. you might could add the words "areas for" after including?
- Went with "and facilities". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any update to the status of the situation with not having permission from the government?
- Nothing yet, sadly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have at the moment, and the article looks good except for that. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Everything looks good! I'm happy to promote this article to GA status. Keep up the high quality when adding about what happens with the permission controversy when that is settled. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]