Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This page fails to meet the GA Criteria. Primarily it fails in the following areas:

- '1. Well Written' - There are various grammatical errors throughout the article. Ref: the Animal Rights section.

- '2. Verifiable with no original research' - There are several unsourced statements. "Foreign workers tend to emigrate from non-Muslim countries.", "As of August 2015, there were no cases within the Sharia Penal Code that would entail the death penalty without four qualified witnesses." and "Stray animals especially dogs and cats are protected their rights by NGO group in Brunei." are examples.

Plebotron (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I've done a few changes to the article, specifically to the areas that you have mentioned above, I'll do more edits to it in the near future. Hallows ^AG (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two editors involved in this GAR have not edited this review nor Wikipedia in some months. I am taking over the GAR. Notes have been left on the editors' talkpages. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pass

• It contains an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Fail

• The prose is generally readable and conveys information, however there are errors in places, the meaning is not always clear ("Brunei is the first country in Asia to ban on shark finning nationwide."), and there is a trend toward short paragraphs, and abrupt, disconnected sentences which inhibit reading flow. The articles needs an appropriate copy-edit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Layout. There are too many short sub-sections, which inhibit reading flow, images and media are used in a haphazard fashion, creating a jumbled disorganised appearance. See WP:Layout - in particular WP:LAYIM and MOS:BODY. The See also and External links sections need to be checked, as they appear to be over long, with dubious entries. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The citing of sources is a major concern. The article qualifies as a quick fail due to having been tagged as needing sources in multiple places since October 2015. Looking at the article history, the article had been quick failed on 20 December 2011 for lack of sources, then was passed four days later, even though the sourcing issue had not been addressed. A FAC in Jan 2012 was quickly rejected because of the sourcing issues, and it was suggested at that time that a GAR take place to remove the GA listing. I don't think I need continue this review. The article clearly does not meet GA requirements. This GAR has been open since September 2015, with the same sourcing concerns, and they still haven't been addressed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear fail, and I will delist the article. It is somewhat concerning that such a poorly sourced and messy article has been listed as a Good Article since December 2011, even though several people were aware of its faults. One of the strengths of the GA process is that delisting can be easily done by any editor in good standing without the need for red tape. I understand the reluctance to get involved, but folks should not be afraid to initiate an individual GAR, and to carry out a delisting when an article clearly does not meet the GA criteria. However, if unsure - perhaps because of prior involvement in an article, there is also the option of a community GAR, or approaching an experienced reviewer, such as myself - as was done in this case. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]