Further improvements for GA status[edit]

This article can still be further improved for it to be of GA standard. Will get to it soon. In the meantime, any form of assistance or suggestions from editors are greatly appreciated.

Based on other articles on sub-division level territories, such as Hong Kong, Sabah and Sarawak, the content on NGOs, military installations, galleries and even the state's firsts are not an absolute requirement for a GA. Vnonymous (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"international honour" section is mostly all bad[edit]

The "International honor and utilities" section is mostly, but not entirely, terrible. Most entries are low-effort tourist pablum list-of entries from random newspapers, websites, and magazines. These "list of places with the best street food" or "best places to retire that you've never heard of" listicles are throwaway filler that newspapers pad their pages with to sell travel ads. There's no honor to be had from being listed there, and none of these entries should be listed here. They are factually and encyclopedically worthless. But there's a few entries in this list that are notable - really the two UNESCO entries. That's all, really. And neither has a reference. I'm inclined to just remove all the rest, source the UNESCO ones, and I think the article would be entirely the better for it. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review invalidated[edit]

The GA review in 2018 was conducted by User:Semi-auto, a sockpuppet of the nominator, User:Vnonymous. Because self-reviews of nominations are not allowed at GAN, the original review has been invalidated and the GA status stripped from the article. This does not prevent the article from being nominated again at some point in the future, and an independent GA review being conducted at that time. (Discussion about this was brought to ANI, and also at WT:GAN.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPA needed?[edit]

It looks like the oral spelling of Penang could be in different targets, some call it Pen-ang and some Pe(e)-nang. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Penang/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: HundenvonPenang (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Reviewing per request. I hope I'll have enough time to look thoroughly.[reply]

Preliminary spot checks

Lead

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ZKang123. Glad to see your feedback. Will be making amendments as we go along. hundenvonPG (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come for the subsequent sections. Please bear in mind to provide page numbers for book sources.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Continued.

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Governance and politics

Demographics

. More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I haven't been getting back to this; I have other things on my plate at the moment.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Feel free to circle back whenever it's convenient. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·