# Talk:Janda Baik

The village was first settled by three Bentong villagers in 1930 who moved when the city was flooded in 1926. Slightly edited. Currently using the word "city" to describe Bentong? Is that accurate or is there a better word for it? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The "city" refers to Bentong. WPSamson (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Leaving it as "city". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Although the village originally only focused on the agricultural industry, Janda Baik also focuses on the electronics and tourism industries today. The location is popular among families, corporations, and associations who choose the location for its tranquil setting. It is also popular among cyclists and trail runners due to good scenic views and the hills' challenging terrain. This paragraph teeters on promotion. I think with the exception of the first sentence, the rest should stay further down the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Just remove the rest of the sentence except the first sentence. WPSamson (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Residents then told the Sultan that Orang Asli tribes had previously settled here and doing agriculture activity by planting paddy and fruits. How is this relevant to the village being renamed? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Remove this sentence instead. WPSamson (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The name was accepted by the Sultan of Pahang. Janda refers to divorcee, while Baik refers to the word balik which refers to the divorcee returns to this village. Balik needs to be explained better: what does it have to do with the divorcee returning to the village? Doesn't janda describe that already? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I found another source already, so it need to be rewritten from:
The news about their reunion prompted the Orang Asli to rename the village to Janda Baik. The name was accepted by the Sultan of Pahang. Janda refers to divorcee, while Baik refers to the word balik which refers to the divorcee returns to this village.
to: The news about their reunion prompted the Orang Asli to rename the village to Janda Balik. Janda refers to divorcee in Malay language, while Balik refers to "return" in Malay language which refers to divorcee returns to this village. The name was accepted by the Sultan of Pahang.
and add this new sentence: Four weeks later after their reconcile, Sir Henry Peacock, Bentong district officer suggests that the name should be renamed to Janda Baik, as "baik" word in Malay refers to the relationship between Orang Asli chief Tok Batin Wok and his wife Siah has improved since the reconcile, hence the village was officially renamed to Janda Baik on 19 September 1936.

After this new sentence, copy this code below to cite this last sentence:
 WPSamson (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Replaced with proposed text and citation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Those vegetables were then sold not just to customers, but also restaurants in Janda Baik. This sentence came out of nowhere. Is it supposed to connect to the previous sentence, and if so, how? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The word is supposed to connect with the previous sentence where the urban farmers sell the vegetables to both customers and restaurants in Janda Baik. WPSamson (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Introduced the subject to make it less ambiguous. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Cyclists often ride to Janda Baik for the challenging terrain of the hills, scenic views, and plenty of great cuisines provided at variety restaurants in this village. I edited this a little already but there's some "puffy" words that act more to promote the area that give that information neutrally. Does this need to be included? It might be more appropriate at another Wikimedia project like WikiVoyage. this extends to the sentences after. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Include this section, it was mentioned in several articles [1] [2] [3] WPSamson (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. It still sounds a little promotional to me, but this should do it.
The Malaysian government feared that a Federal Government's Minister may have been captured by communist guerillas. Somewhat edited already; what's the relevance to the plane crash? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to include this text for better clarity ...due to he previously took part in a fight against Japanese Red Army in the past from 1973 until 1981. From the same citation that cited in this sentence. WPSamson (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 Partly done. Partly reworded already, but is there a specific name that this fight is known by? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Unfortunately the source / citation did not mention which specific fights he been taking part of. WPSamson (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Generalised "fight" into "fights". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  16:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@WPSamson: Looking forward to your responses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: See the reply above for some info and changes to this article. WPSamson (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@WPSamson: Thanks for responding. There's still one more question that can be answered, if you could. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  21:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@WPSamson: Alright, my work is done here. Good luck with the GAN! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  16:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thanks WPSamson (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Janda Baik/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: S Marshall (talk · contribs) 10:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
I can see at a glance that this article has been written by someone with near-fluency in English, but I am afraid that the English in this article does need some attention.  Please pay attention to number agreement in nouns (i.e. in phrases like The earliest founder for this village are Haji Deris, Haji Kadir, and Haji Yasir, "founder" should be plural) and correct inflection in verbs (i.e. in phrases like who built a hut and stayed in the area for almost a week before others start populated the area, use the infinitive after "start").  After this has been done, I'll make a further copyediting pass myself before making a decision on whether to pass or fail on this point.
These two sentences has been fixed. Need check for the rest of the sentences. WPSamson (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I have checked them and made some changes.  I have one question left.  We say in one place that in Malay, janda means divorcee, and in another place, that it means widow.  I expect it means both -- a woman who's no longer married -- but could you confirm this?—S Marshall T/C 13:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
According to the provided references, both are different meanings despite the same wording. One meaning is because the divorcee reunited, whereas another meaning regarding the naming is that the widow do help soldiers who returning from civil war. WPSamson (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you.  I have made some tweaks and I'm content to pass the article on this point.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Yes it does.  Good work.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
It does contain a list of all the references.  The citation styles are inconsistent in a couple of places, with for example the publication dates sometimes in brackets and sometimes not.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Yes they are.  Well done.
C. It contains no original research: 
Everything that might reasonably constitute "research" has a citation.  I have checked a random sample of the citations and in every case they support the claims made in the article.  Some of the citations are in languages I do not speak.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
The article was started by User:Aiman abmajid, who has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations, and I must assume that there are copyvios in the history.  It has subsequently been fully rewritten by editors with no history of copyvios, and I did not detect any copyright violations from the sources in the languages that I understand.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
The article covers Janda Baik's history, economy, and sports and recreation.  There is no section on its geography, although the article does mention its elevation of 800 m and a stream that runs through the middle, and no section on its climate.
 In progress Adding the geography section soon as some sources are available. WPSamson (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 Reviewing request. The geography section has been added. Need to review the section. WPSamson (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.  I'm now content to pass this.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Yes it does.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
The article consists of factual statements about an uncontroversial topic, and is clearly unbiased.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
There is no content dispute or history of edit-warring.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
The article contains photographs taken by User:WPSamson and appropriately licenced, a photograph that has been recoloured by WPSamson (the original photograph being from 1933, and therefore out of copyright, so this would be a permissible derivative work), and a screenshot from a YouTube video.  YouTube allows its contributors to upload videos under CC-BY-SA, and the subject video is licenced under CC-BY-SA.  I note that the screenshot is in .png format and I wonder if this is the best option, but this doesn't affect the GA status of the article.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Yes, the images are relevant.  The captions are relevant, but not always in GA-quality English (e.g. Haji Yasir (in black suit) are one of the three founders of Kampung Tiga Haji, the previous name for Janda Baik.)  Fixed by Chipmunkdavis.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Although I am not yet happy to pass this as a GA-quality article, this page is nearly there, and I will be happy to work with the authors until it passes.
I'm now content to pass this.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


#### Ping
@WPSamson: I'm pinging you to prompt you to read this GA review.—S Marshall T/C 15:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall, if it is not an issue I thought I might step in and take a look at carrying out some of the fixes myself, especially as you note it is close and WPSamson hasn't edited since this review started. One of your comments is that the citation style is inconsistent with regards to date format, and looking into the article it appears they're all done with Template:Cite news. Sources without an author apparently display their publication date without parentheses, while those with authors use parentheses. Would you know of a way to override this behaviour? CMD (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
You're right: that's the intended and expected behaviour.  I've struck that and passed the article on that point.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The weather table lists average days of rain, but the values from the source are daily chance of rain in %. Thus, the table says November averages 59 days of rain. The Weather Box template doesn't support daily chance of rain. I don't know enough about meteorology to know if it's a matter of simply multiplying the number of days in the month by the daily % chance of rain for the month.SESteve (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)