This review is transcluded from Talk:Battambang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Arcahaeoindris (talk · contribs) 16:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 03:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take this one. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been 30 days and this article has not been brought up to the GA standard. Marking this as failed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Article has issues with clarity, with multiple unclear statements.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article has issues with editorializing. Lead has some unsourced statements.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some citations are to unreliable sources. Some statements are unsourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article has issues with text-source integrity.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Mild, very minor issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article is not broad enough to cover all the key points about the city. Some topics given importance in sources are not mentioned in the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article focuses on Battambang City.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article does not have any bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable, with the only recent reverts being for disruptive editing.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are free to use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article has issues with clarity, editorializing, text-source integrity, and breadth.

• Earwig's Copyvio Detector flags the phrase "its well-preserved French colonial architecture" as being very similar to the Britannica source. It's not a huge issue, but it might be best to change it.
• Some of the sections are quite short, so perhaps combine some. Since the "Cuisine" section is only one paragraph, I would suggest moving the paragraph to the "Culture" section. I think it would also make sense to turn "Religion" into a subsection of "Demographics", but that's just my personal preference.
• The subsections in the "Landmarks" section are certainly too short, and they are unnecessary as each individual landmark does not need its own heading.
• Your use of English variants is inconsistent. For example, within the "History" section, you spell the same word as "modernisation" and "modernization". Per WP:RETAIN, the article should use the dialect that was used when the article was created, which means this article should consistently use British English.

  I've fixed this part myself, but be sure to keep this in mind in the future. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The caption of the image of the Ramayana carving does not indicate the relevance to the article. I would also suggest adding captions to the images in the infobox.
• I might look into this more later, but from what I can see, it looks like this article is not broad enough. For example, the "Demographics" section mentions that there are nine universities, but the article does not mention what these universities are. Also, do reliable sources not describe the physical geography of the city?
• Some potential issues with sourcing:
  • What makes Cambodianess a reliable source?
  • What makes Weather.Directory a reliable source? It would be better if an official source or something similar was used for the climate.
  • There is a consensus that CityPopulation.de is not a reliable source. (There are multiple separate discussions on RSN so I won't link them all here.)
  • What makes Journal of Arts and Thai Studies a reliable source? It's not indexed in Scimago.
  • What makes Sistercities.app a reliable source?
• I'll be doing some copyediting myself for grammar, conciseness, etc.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Some figures in the infobox are not cited: government type, area, elevation.
• the Sangkae River, which winds its way through the province is not verified in body.
• founded [...] by the Khmer Empire is not verified in body.
• Why is Siem Reap's status mentioned in the lead but not the body?
• Benefitting from the fertile and productive land surrounding it, Battambang has long been heralded feels like editorializing.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally don't think it's necessary to list all of the provinces that were part of Inner Cambodia, since only Battambang is relevant. But it's fine either way.
• The Siamese ruled Battambang as a provincial capital through the Thai-speaking Khmer Abhaiwongse family, a branch of the Khmer royal family, which governed for six generations. These details aren't particularly relevant.
• It's not very clear to me what chose Battambang as the centre of Cambodia's independence movement means.
• Battambang was Cambodia's second largest city during the 20th century. appears to be a misreading of the source. The source describes it as the second city, which is different from actually being the second-largest.
• In the sentence about the Khmer Rouge, I would suggest prefacing it with something like Once the Cambodian genocide began so that it's more clear to readers unfamiliar with the subject.
• I would suggest that the last sentence, about buildings under conservation, should be moved to the "Landmarks" section.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Köppen climate classification needs a citation. (Based on other articles, it would be acceptable if this citation is just a map that doesn't specifically mention Battambang.)

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the round, nine-sided edifice Surely something that's nine-sided is not exactly round.
• notable for its Art Deco style The word "notable" is WP:PUFFERY.
• Instead of describing Wat Demrei Sar as over 100 years old, it'd be better to say it in absolute terms (i.e. built in the 19th century).

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This section's prose looks good.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not really clear why the 1993 elections are relevant. Was the city's infrastructure a politicized issue?
  • I understand that the 1993 elections were the first multiparty elections. I think the article should make it more clear that this is why the post-1993 era is important; it wasn't clear to me at first.
• I think the sentence about climate change should be in the climate section. I understand how it's relevant to the sentence about how climate events impact slums, but I think this sentence could be moved alongside the other sentence on climate, or it could be rewritten so that the other sentence about slums segues into it.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest maybe moving the information about Psar Nath market to this section since there is another sentence about markets. It works either way, though, since the market is also a landmark.
• When you mention the service industry, I think you should specify that this is a classification of the Department of Planning. The source mentions this in a note, which I think is necessary for readers to understand the classification.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the phrase Under the administrative divisions of Cambodia can be removed. Although the link might be useful to some, the phrase itself does not add anything.
• I personally think that the statement about investment in infrastructure should be in the infrastructure section. I understand that this would make the "Government" section very short, so perhaps it would make sense to merge them into a "Government and infrastructure" section.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Battambang has been noted for its longstanding importance This is WP:Weasel words and WP:PUFFERY. If it has been noted, say who noted it. If the importance is longstanding, explain what makes it longstanding.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Battambang is famous for its [...] local dishes, including fried bananas and rice noodles is puffery. The source mentions these dishes but does not say the city is famous for them. (However, the source does verify that the jasmine rice is famous, so that part is okay.)

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this section discusses pagodas, the pagoda mentioned in the landmarks section should be here instead.
• This section had a "clarification needed" tag but I removed it because I think it's clear enough already.
• Any more detail about the pagoda style unique to Battambang? I'll accept it either way, but it feels like readers would want to know more.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You start a sentence with While closed, which implicitly means that it was closed due to the pandemic, but I think this should be stated more explicitly.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the notable people lack citations.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be checking 10 randomly selected sources. Citation numbers as of this revision:

• @Arcahaeoindris: Okay, so there are a few issues with text-source integrity. These should be fixed, along with the other issues I have raised. In particular, I think this article is not broad enough. Putting this on hold for now, but it is likely to fail the breadth requirement unless you can address several missing details, either by adding them to the article or explaining why they are not important. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]