# Talk:Bukit Larut

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bukit Larut/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Clayoquot (talk · contribs) 03:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for submitting. I'll review this. Talk to you soon. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:20, 20 February 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: 
Prose is generally clear, concise, and encyclopedic in tone. There are some passages where the meaning was not clear or the wording is awkward:
a place where the administration and the tin mining activity could be seen from a hilltop from a place of retreat for the English people - This sentence seems to imply that it was important for all these functions to be possible in the same location. If that is intentional, the text should say why. If the implied meaning is not intentional, it should be reworded to not make the implication.
 Done The original text does not follows what it was stated in the cited references, hence a lot of text were replaced with stating that it was the discovery of the hill with good geography feature that led to the hill station being constructed in that location. WPSamson (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
the British administration was in need to look for another mountain area which had a larger area that would allow for larger hill station development. - Does hints that the British stopped using Maxwell Hill as their hill station. The article should clearly state whether this was the case, and if so when.
 Comment: I am not able to find information regarding if British stopped using Maxwell Hill as their hill station, should it stated the fate is unknown or remove it altogether? WPSamson (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be better to remove it. To say its fate is unknown we'd need a source saying its fate is unknown. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 Removed WPSamson (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
as a tourism area which was less exploited by the state government - What does "exploited" mean?
 Removed Text removed due to unclear explaination. WPSamson (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The area is considered the wettest place in Malaysia because the location receives the highest rainfall in Malaysia - This says the same thing twice. Either say it is the wettest or that it receives the highest rainfall, not both.
 Done Text has been shortened. WPSamson (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
the Tea Garden House remains unaffected from discontinuation. This is unclear to me. Does it mean the Tea Garden House remained open when the other things closed?
 Done Rewrite the sentence to explain that the Tea Garden House continues to operate despite the absence of tea plantation. WPSamson (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm finding some more issues. Re it is estimated 150 tons per hectare of soil will be lost annually, under what circumstances would this happen? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The references didn't say why was this happens. WPSamson (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The sentence doesn't make sense without saying why or when the soil loss would be triggered, so the part about soil loss should be removed. Or if you feel it's important, feel free to post a quote from the relevant part of the source and I'll try to see if I can paraphrase it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I found another sources, but unfortunately it also didn't say why it happens. So I would just  Removed instead. WPSamson (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Re: Maxwell Hill was renamed to Bukit Larut in 1979, although not much development has taken place in the hill station. - I'm confused by the word "although" which implies that there is a relationship between the lack of development and the renaming. Is there a relationship between these two facts? Does the part about lack of development even need to be said? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 Removed WPSamson (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
I think the lead section needs to be shortened by reducing detail. E.g. An attempt to redevelop Bukit Larut with the inclusion of hotels, a highland flower garden, a lookout tower, a seminar centre, and 400 metres (1,300 ft) of suspension bridge could be condensed to something like "A proposal to redevelop Bukit Larut with additional tourism facilities..." Details such as which has been studied by various scientists and researchers shouldn't be in either the lead or the body - it's obvious the biodiversity has been studied, because that's how we know about it.
 Done WPSamson (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The lead still has the details on flower gardens, etc. that I mentioned above. Do you think these details are important for the lead? If yes, why? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh I forgotten there still got wording left in lead, so now was  Removed WPSamson (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
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: 
Sourcing looks good. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
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: 
Sourcing looks good in general.
C. It contains no original research: 
"The government of Perak, however, refuted the claim, stated that the cable car project will never take place in the future" doesn't seem to be supported by the source, which says only that there are no  plans for a cable car project. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 Removed WPSamson (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Looks good.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Summary style is mostly used very well. The Biodiversity section contains more detail than is necessary about who performed what studies and when. You can state uncontroversial factual findings as facts. For example, instead of saying "with 22 different lichens discovered in a 2004 study conducted by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Australia National University", you can state this as a simple fact such as "22 different lichens have been identified." I'd also suggest removing the list of Latin names of amphibian families or at least converting them to common names and listing only the most common ones.Clayoquot (talk | contribs)
 Done WPSamson (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

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: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Images are good enough for GA. If I can make a suggestion though, the pictures in the biodiversity section could use more... biodiversity. It looks as if you've ensured that all photos were actually taken in or near Bukit Larut, but that's not required - it would be good to show some pictures of mammals and birds that are known to live in the area even if the actual picture was taken elsewhere. If you want to add or replace pictures during the GA review I would be happy to re-review them. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 Reviewing request. Oh I did not know that it's not a must for the images of animals to be always taken at the same area. Anyway I had added several images of animals into biodiversity section, along with image of forest and restaurant into the article and need review for the image in the article. WPSamson (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates. The new images are fine in terms of copyright status. However, the new picture of a Dicksonia antarctica fern fails the "relevant to the topic" requirement because that species of fern is not found in Malaysia. Any photo of any other plant or animal species that has been found in Bukit Larut would be suitable. Or you could just remove this photo. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I had replaced with another image of peacock which can be found in that area. WPSamson (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
That works, thanks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This is a strong, interesting, and well-sourced article with an impressive variety of sources. I think it's close to GA. After comments are addressed I'll give it a bit more copyediting and I look forward to passing it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Clayoquot: I had done improving the article page based on the suggestion. Need to review the article again before pass for GA. WPSamson (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Cool! I plan to finish reviewing it this weekend. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I made some fairly deep edits to the history story to try to make it more clear. Please check to make sure I didn't make it inaccurate. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
All issues have been addressed so I am passing this. Congratulations! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)