Talk:Singapore/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Armanaziz (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The article seems to be in pretty good shape - only a few areas need improvement. I'll try to highlight the weak areas one by one so that someone can work on them.

• My first observation is - the last paragraph of the section 2.6 Republic of Singapore needs copy-edit. Also the last sentence has a citation required tag.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• There is another citation required tag in the first paragraph of the section Geography.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of the Transports section has some outdated data which need to be updated.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Another citation required tag in the Arts section.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Please address these. Arman (Talk) 12:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

While the citation situation is now fixed, the copy-edit concern for section 2.6 has not been addressed adequately. For example:

• "Lee Hsien Loong's tenure included the 2008 global financial crisis, the resolution of a dispute over Malayan railways land, and the introduction of integrated resorts." - this sentence needs to be rewritten and possibly broken down to be meaningful to a reader who is not familiar with the last two issues.
• "On 23 March 2015, Lee Kuan Yew died, declaring a one-week period of public mourning." - sounds like Lee Kuan Yew himself declared the public mourning.

Arman ^(Talk) 13:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've made some changes, hopefully it's better now. Feinoa (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• • The concerns from the earlier review now seem to be addressed. The coverage has increased, referencing improved and the article seems reasonably stable. Based on my assessment I am promoting this article. Arman ^(Talk) 06:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Further comments

@Armanaziz: I appreciate that you tried to review this article. However, I don't believe this article satisfies the criteria for a good article. If you notice the previous comments in GA review 3, there were multiple issues which have not been addressed. Many sections require copy editing. Some information in the lead is not there in the body. There is a lot of undue information as well it has issues with balancing information (mundane factoids are given greater province than encyclopedic information).--DreamLinker (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@DreamLinker:, fair points. You seem to have a more stringent standard for GA in mind than I do, and frankly I am rather new at GA assessment. So please feel free to nominate the article for GA reassessment and highlight your specific concerns so that the editors can work on them. I'd be happy to contribute in any way beneficial.-- Arman ^(Talk) 04:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)