Talk:Kota Kinabalu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Kota Kinabalu was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 2007-04-07 |
 |
Kota Kinabalu has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is supported by the Southeast Asia WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Population
Hello. Someone said that the metro. population of KK is 1.2m. I find this a bit too much. Is there any source to this claim? Maybe 0.9m is more acceptable. I dont know, just my opinion.
Another thing, does anyone know where we can find data on the demographics of KK? The closest thing i have found on this is a data on registered voters in the city, for the 2004 General Election. I find it quite interesting that according to that data more than 70% of the residents are Chinese. But probably this only represents the total of voters in KK (Api-Api) constituency only.
Sabah's population is estimated to be about 2.5mil, so 1.2million may be within bounds of believability. In any case, its hard to define what areas constitute metropolitan KK, since there is not a single definition in the first place Whodhellknew 20:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- i think the better number should be 700,000 for KK metro. if u see data from world-gazetteer the 2007 calculation for KK is 532,000. this should include KK, inanam, till telipok: KK city district boundary. then there is also Donggongon: 78,000. and Putatan: 85,000 (in penampang district)which are virtually connected to KK. so total 2007 calculation: almost 700,000. if we wanna be official, then we use latest census: banci 2000-- KK: 305,000 Donggongon: 56,000 and Putatan: 62,000. (or total for Penampang district: 137,000) total: 424,000 (or 442,000) metro. in 2000. kawaputra 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- okay, i just realised there is a difference between urban area and metropolitan area. so maybe we can say Papar and Tuaran is within KK's zone of influence, hence part of the metro area, although not "physically connected by continuous built-up development". kawaputra 10:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Etymology - more theories
from [1]. it says kina= quinine, balu=immune or loss of memory. however this the only source for this claim, and im hearing this only 1st time. so im just trying to substantiate this. not trying to propagate an original research. after further research i found out that quinine (bark) is also known as "kina" [2]. quinine normally come from cinchona trees. cinchona is also known as "kina" for certain ppl (eg: Indonesia: [3]). i also found this translation of Kinabalu National Park from japanese calling it Cinchona val natural park: [4] kawaputra 09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA:Fixes needed
Unfortunately, after comparing this article to the criteria at WP:WIAGA, I have had to fail this article's nomination as a Good Article. The BIG issue is with Criteria 2 (accuracy and referencing). Among the problems:
- In the lead section, a superlative claim is made that does not appear to be referenced anywhere in the article, the statement that this is one of the fastest growing cities. This needs specific reference, even though it is in the lead.
- MANY sections (too many to list them all here) have inadequate referencing. Ideally, each new paragraph should introduce a new idea. Therefore, each new idea should be referenced to a specific outside source. Many of the sections have only one or often no references. It is impossible to find where much of the information in the article comes from.
- There appears to be a mix of referencing styles. While many references use the footnote style, there are about a dozen blind HTML links; these should be placed inside of ref tags and appropriately expanded to a full bibliographic entry, just like the others are.
Please make the above fixes. Once they are done, feel free to renominate the article at WP:GAC. If you object to this review, you may request remediation at WP:GA/R.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
