Talk:Flag of Singapore/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Usage guidelines section, you say that individuals and non-governmental organizations can only fly the flag for a three month period of the year, and then in the Proper use and display section you say they can fly it year round. Could you clarify this, please?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I have added a few fact tags where I would like to see citations.
   • The Ministry of Information part of ref 11 deadlinks.
   • In the refs, there are several references that say "See above, rxxx", referring to parts of the Singapore Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules. There needs to be more information than simply "See above", due to the way that information gets moved around on WP. Because in the future someone else might be editing the article and move information around, making the "see above" reference no longer applicable, or people might pull information (and references) out of this article to use in another article, and so "see above" would no longer apply.
   • If there are multiple websites within a ref, these should be separated to make them easier to read.
   • In ref 43, what makes the last two websites (Mr. Brown and Yawning Bread) reliable?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have a few comments regarding prose and references, so I am putting this article on hold. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed all CN's, working on the information. Prose has been a problem, but we haven't managed to find anyone to get the article checked for prose. But there has been a lot of folks coming around and using MOS scripts. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice work and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)