From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Sarawak has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

GOCE work sitrep[edit]

@Blackmane: Could you get me up to speed on your progress with this article? This is a big project. Jasphetamine (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jasphetamine: I've gotten through most of the meat and have hit the territorial disputes section. The history section took me a lot longer than I had expected and things have been rather busy for me over the last week. I'm hoping to be able to spend some time this weekend on it. Please let me know what sections you're thinking of taking on. The fragmented prose in some sections take a long time to bend into shape. Blackmane (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Blackmane: I started poking at the conservation section, focusing on rewriting the broken prose, restructuring for continuity of logical progression, and chopping out redundant junk. I'm not a hardcore full-time type on Wiki so don't take a lapse in activity to mean I've given up.

If you haven't tried to fix an article with properly broken prose before, instead of bending each sentence try ripping out the entire paragraph, use it for reference and rewrite the whole thing as a native speaker. It is more efficient and less frustrating.

Jasphetamine (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jasphetamine:It's basically what I'm doing. it's why, when you check the edit history, there'll be huge time gaps followed by a big edit. The other thing slowing me down was having to do quite a bit of double checking in the history section because a number of statements weren't backed by the source. Blackmane (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Blackmane: I'm going to work on the section about ethnic groups a bit. It is sloppy. Another worry is unsourced stuff that seems almost like racial stereotyping or violates WP:OR or WP:SYNTH -- for now I'll fix the language and tag citation needed/clarify. I'll need some guidance on what to keep -- I'm not comfortable with Wiki politics. Jasphetamine (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jasphetamin:No problem, if you want a second opinion just drop me a ping. Failing that I should be able to find where to get further guidance. Blackmane (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Blackmane:Yeah, so I tried to at least get some rephrasing and workable prose going on in this section, but right now it isn't very good. I think that the insanely weird nature of what is contained in this section and how it is phrased stems, at least partially, from a clumsy attempt to not set off close-paraphrasing alarm bells. The repeated structure of each paragraph got me suspicious so I checked citation 81, and it is easy to see how this was copy/pasted then mildly changed. WP:COPYVIO is a concern. Honestly I'd really like to WP:MERGE Demographics of Sarawak and rip out everything in this article concerning the population. BTW I'm in the GOCE irc channel while editing, drop by sometime. Jasphetamine (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Demographics section problems[edit]

@Blackmane: Forgive my double ping on this, but I'd like to put the lid on the demo section asap since it is reresents a large percentage of problem-text and therefore time and effort here.

Check how well fleshed out the demographics of Sarawak page and the related individual ethnic subgroup pages are -- how can we best leverage those existing articles to the benefit of this one?

In light of my looking over those breakout pages IMO the demo section here is so fact-selective, poorly phrased, and close-paraphrased from source 81 that it isn't worth its own rewrite. I don't know how copy/paste works for internal wiki content, but a straight WP:MERGE would make this article very long.

Please advise dude. Thanks,

Jasphetamine (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

In light of my looking over those breakout pages IMO the demo section here is so fact-selective, poorly phrased, and close-paraphrased from source 81 that it isn't worth its own rewrite. As copy editors, it's not our remit to do this. What we can do is bounce it back to the copy edit request page and let it be know that there are some content issues with that section and that it is not going to be copyedited until it is done so. Be sure to articulate what your concerns are. I've started on copy edits in the past but upon coming up against some content issues have pinged the requester, let them know the problems and left it to them. the guild members who look after the request page will close the request from there. Blackmane (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Blackmane, I left a note on the request page letting @Cerevisae: know I've encountered issues beyond the purview of copyedit and directing him here. Jasphetamine (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Jasphetamine: and Blackmane, for the ping. But I dont understand the meaning of the "In light of my looking over those breakout pages IMO the demo section here is so fact-selective, poorly phrased, and close-paraphrased from source 81 that it isn't worth its own rewrite." You meant that the whole section is a close paraphrasing? I also don't see any source 81 in the demographics section. Regards. Cerevisae (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cerevisae: Source 93 is probably what I meant. I was referring to loads of closecopy from pages of The Borneo Trilogy which were especially severe in the ethnic groups section. I then mention those external articles since the best way to fix the Demographics section would involve leveraging them. Jasphetamine (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jasphetamine:, I think I had fixed the demographics section now. Is there anything I could do for this section? Cerevisae (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cerevisae: Um... it looks like you just reverted the removal of my reworked section. It took quite some effort to rephrase that much close-para text without misrepresenting sources, dodge any potential racism pitfalls, etc. If that section is now "fixed" it was done by myself on behalf of GOCE, not you. Also be advised that your edit note of "Some correction" is misleading. It should say that you restored a TON of stuff edited but ultimately removed. @Miniapolis: never archived your Request so if you are going to make big changes check with Blackmane who is the editor from GOCE that took point and has done the lions share of editing. He should be kept in the loop. Jasphetamine (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I noted on WP:GOCE/REQ that Blackmane said they would continue the copyedit. WP:NODEADLINE. Miniapolis 15:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, @Jasphetamine:, I have undone the previous two edits. What do you meant by leveraging on the main article Demographics of Sarawak? Thanks. Cerevisae (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, I am not comfortable making big edit decisions without the initial GOCE editor being in the loop. I defer to @Blackmane: on everything here and I encourage you to coordinate with him before doing any more editing. He is not just my senior within GOCE, he is damn good -- better than me by far. Jasphetamine (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jasphetamine for the clarification. Cerevisae (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Cerevisae:, I intend on working on the demographic section last as that is likely to take the longest. I've got the Education and Culture sections to complete then will work on that. Blackmane (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Blackmane Cerevisae (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jasphetamine, Cerevisae, and Miniapolis: just a heads up that I'm currently away for a few days, I haven't abandoned the editing of the article. I'll get back to it once I'm back in the country. --Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted, Blackmane and thanks for your effort. Cerevisae (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Blackmane: Thanks for your hardwork. I have started the FA review of this article. It will gonna take some time for the FA review to complete. Cerevisae (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Sarawak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)