Talk:Sembawang Hot Spring Park

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 28, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail

Thank you for your review on the abovementioned. I'm confused by your comments as it's highly ambiguous on why this section failed, let alone on how one should go about to improve it further. Grammar? Prose? MoS? Like what some helpful reviewers did previously, esp the Brits, u too are most welcomed to copyedit or tidy up the affected parts if nec. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

Based on available reliable sources, I've provided up to date details on its entire history, geographical aspect, chemical composition, social impact earlier etc. As such, can you elaborate to me specifically what is lacking now? Also see my additional comments below -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

This article still needs some significant work. If you hurry, it can still pass. Still needs references.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. ~Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to draw to your attention of a recent review which resulted in much 'hoo-hah' & embarassment to the relevant parties recently. As such, kindly highlight the issues SPECIFICALLY (e.g. like what this assigned reviewer did for the mentioned case) in order to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding and frustration later. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article strays off the Manual of Style. Furthermore, some sentences are rather awkward. I would say the prose should be brought to Good Article Standards. This article also needs more references. The article has been reviewed. If you disagree with my decision, and do not listen to my opinion, then the article might fail. You have one day remaining. I do not think this article will be anywhere near eady by then. I wish you luck. ~Meldshal42 19:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You've finally highlighted the main issue now, which are minor & can be easily corrected, but still failed to mention the specific line or sections, 'cos MoS is highly subjective according to one's interpretation, in order for me or even an uninvolved third party to improve the article meaningfully. Wrt references, what are u referring to earlier? The no. of references (It means u have not fully read or understood, esp the comments made by senior reviewers in the mentioned case earlier) or the quality of references? (which I've mentioned above) Instead, I find your tone & approach rather unconstructive in your review so far:

• Persistent harping on the 'countdown' (imposed 2-day deadline to reply or edit?) regardless of the official GAN rules, i.e. 7 days hold period.
• Unconstructive remarks: "You have one day remaining. I do not think this article will be anywhere near eady by then. I wish you luck." Do you think such 'imposed deadlines' and ambiguous/provocative remarks helpful or meaningful in this review so far?

Moving forward, I think it would be in the interest of both parties if u withdraw your review next. If u are not agreeable, I'll seek 2nd opinion from an experienced reviewer or even put this article back on the GAN queue with highlighted remarks [1] on this case for anyone from the GAN committee or SGpedia to pick up & follow up accordingly like the mentioned case next. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the article and made a few changes. As far as I'm concerned the prose in this article now meets the GA criteria, with no significant MoS issues outstanding. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise! It seem that before I could escalate this case to the GAN committee next pending his decision, u folks are quick to drop by to clean up any crappy reviews in order to protect the integrity of the GA project again. I think the 'atomic impact' I made previously, make u folks particularly attentive (or edgy) whenever my name cropped up or mentioned at GAN in future (I'll not be surpised even if I'm actively placed on their watchlists too - 8P). Thank u for your timely copyedits and support mate. Dun worry, I'll keep my 'Fat Man' aside for the time being. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just happen to have your talk page watchlisted, to see what trouble you're getting up to. ;-) I'm not representing the GA project, I'm just here to see fair play. I don't like to see articles written by non-native English speakers dismissed as needing a copyedit, so I tend to roll my sleeeves up and dig in. Meldshal42 is of course perfectly within his/her rights not to do that, but hopefully all of the issues raised in the review have been addressed now and you'll soon be able to celebrate your next GA with a cuppa. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm most flattered! Beside u, I'm fully aware there's a group of interested folks from the various WikiProject groups 'shadowing' me to find out what this old 'Staffy' (by detractors) or 'SGpedian legend' (by supporters) up to next, or maybe hope to witness any occasional 'fireworks display' even though I'm currently semi-retired in Wikipedia. Anyway, with or without a GA win later, I still get my daily cuppa of either 'Earl Grey' (due to my long association with the Brits since my schooling years, Raleigh International involvement & now professionally), 'Longjing', or our local 'Teh Tarik' mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Second Time

Alright. This is a quality article. I apolgize for my nasty messages, I was kind of grouchy. I think the article is rather good, but could you please add some references? That would be all I would need for approval as a GA. Thank you. ~Meldshal42 19:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Another unexpected surprise! According to my previous research & on-site visit, I've included all what I could find as per my reference list which were derived from various reliable third party's sources such as The Straits Times, The Business Time, S'pore Ministry of Defence, 'Timeout Singapore', Fraser & Neave Property Development. I would be most happy if u or anyone else could direct me to any new leads or additional references other than what I've quoted to date. As such, I've got nothing more to add now. Wrt references, I think u have missed out the following quote by a highly regarded GA/GA sweep reviewer from the mentioned case earlier:

“ There are no rules for how many citations (I'm assuming that the reviewer means citations, not references) are "needed", or "enough", and certainly no correlation with article length. There is no reason why an article could not be listed as a GA (or even an FA) having relied on only a single source, depending on the subject. I can see no information that is uncited to a reliable source, which is the only requirement. Unless there is significant information missing as a result of having relied on only a few sources, and it doesn't appear to me that there is, then there is no problem. ”

Lastly, do refrain from editing someone else comments in Wikipedia [2]. As someone who has been editing long enuf in Wikipedia since Mar 2007, one would know it's impolite or 'ungentlemanly' to edit someone else comments, even if it was well intentional (That's my personal writing style I used online), unless it's deem offensive by a community consensus. In fact, I was not personally offended but rather amused by your earlier act, as you should have devote your time & energy meaningfully to dwell more on the MoS issue or help in copyediting like what Malleus speedily done earlier. Isn't that more constructive & generating good karma too? In the interest of the GA Project & the watchful folks at SGpedia, let's wrap this review up once & for all, as we've been thru' much unexpected surprises & decision reversals [3], esp one coming in less than a month apart. Thank u. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Comments

Well, it appears that my apology was pointless. Apparently you just like to make smart comments and really get on my nerves. I hope that you don't treat other users the way that you treated me in the future. Good day. ~Meldshal42 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Explicitly for all to see, who get on whose nerves first? Did I expect or forced u to make an apology earlier? Why did an uninvovled senior GA reviewer drop by to copyedit & commented too? Most importantly, ask yourself honestly why this GA review ended up this way? I hope u could sit back & reflect over this case, & keep your emotions in check. The key qualities are 'self-realisation & 'sincerity' here. Fyi, I'll not hesitate to take anyone to task, whether he/she is an admin or even a highly esteemed editor here, to provide a full account on their words or actions if nec. Likewise, I'm not afraid to put my comments on record or even under a scrutiny later. Most importantly, one has to know to do the right thing, when the time is given to u. Whether u like it or not, the 'smart comments' are based on irrefutable evidence & past precedents given. Fyi, I studied law, criminology, investigation analysis courtesy of my national service which allows me to see & learn first hand the likes of all people (esp the worst) in various forms & colour. Lastly, do you want to bring this review to a closure now, or let it fester along that may lead to some unpleasant outcome later? (Pse reply only on this page & not on my talkpage again or start any unnecessary section on this page when it's still on the same subject matter. Thank u) -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would counsel both sides to keep this discussion focused on the GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

GA comments

As I see this review hasn't been active in days, I'll give you some comments before passing/failing.

• It lies about 100 metres into the wooded area off the main road.. How many feet is in a metre? I know the answer, but most people won't.

 Done. Thank you for your review. Out of the six issues u mentioned earlier, I was surprised that 'four' were related to conversion matters without careful regard on the context of the article, the derived sources, or the official GA review criteria. Do note that such requests are highly subjective in nature. What next? In gallon? Teaspoon? Tablespoon or conversion to American English? Besides, it's not just a numbers game comparison too. Should I use the 1.2 billion mainland Chinese as my sole justification when I write on articles related to HK, Taiwan or Singapore even though the measurments used in the respective countries are different? To complicate matters further, should one mention the relevant terms in Simplified (PRC) or Traditional Chinese (HK, Taiwan, Macau etc)? See the picture mate? Fyi, I've not encountered any such requests in my past GA reviews I received to date, nor see any reviewers putting an article on hold or failing one (GA Committee forbids!) when these requests were not met previously. What I encountered so far are Wikignomes (likely Americans) adding such imperial units conversion in some of my past articles subsequently, regardless they're GA or not. Nevertheless, I've converted the mentioned figures accordingly but I take this request as an exception, rather than the norm in good faith. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason you bolded part of your comment? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While some may used Italic, using Bold to emphasise certain words or statement, is my personal style I used all along in writing. It should not be mistaken as a 'shout' here, which are usually CAPITALISED in IRC speak. u can see similar examples on my previous comments above & on my talkpage too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. If you don't mind, I would like to suggest you refrain from using bold, as some people might assume you are shouting. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad no offence was taken as I've assumed good faith on your part earlier. Fyi, u are the first & only person to highlight this to me in webspace to date. Most importantly, I think one should focus on the essence of the message rather than on the form itself. Let's focus on this review instead & bring it to a closure soon. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• In 1998, The Ministry of Defence (Mindef) acquired the land containing the spring for the expansion of the nearby Sembawang Air Base, leaving F&N with less than 4 hectares of land. How many acres in a hectares?

 Done. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Soon after, rumours of a Malay boy who had met his gruesome death by falling into the boiling spring water years before began to circulate, and a Chinese curse, written in graffiti on the wall that now encloses the well, promised a similar fate to anyone who vandalised the premises. This sentence is confusing. Especially "years before began to circulate" seems like it is missing a word. Also, "gruesome" could be POV.

 Done. Text rephrased. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• During its heyday, up to 1,000 people visited the hot spring at weekends. "Heyday" isn't a very encyclopediac word. Maybe "During its peak..."?

 Done. Text rephrased. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• The temperature of the spring water is around 131°C. Needs F. conversion.

 Done. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• In an investigation carried out by the Nanyang Technological University in 1994, the hot spring was found to have an estimated yield of approximately 150 litres per minute at ground level through installed steel casings. How many litres to the ounce?

 Done. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall a high quality article, but there are a few issues. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since imperial units are not used (at all!) in Singapore, I'll say that your points 1, 2, 5, and 6 are not relevant here. In fact, to use imperial units would not conform with WP:UNITS. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but neither I nor the majority of the 300 million people in the US are from Singapore. It isn't a large issue, but it would save readers a lot of confusion to just use {{convert}}. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so. However, since most articles written using imperial units are not given metric equivalents, it smacks of double standards to demand that here. I've long counseled the other Singaporean editors not to get too defensive when it comes to criticism, so I'll not want to harp on this point. I do see what you are trying to say, and I hope you see mine too. That should be sufficient? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand where you're comming from here. It appears that those issues have been addressed, and there is another review. Sorry for the late response, as well. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sembawang Hot Spring. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080428110841/http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/sembhot to http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/sembhot
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014061926/http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_580_2005-01-24.html to http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_580_2005-01-24.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)