Talk:Tan Teck Guan Building/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 06:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to fail this article at this stage, as there is still a lot of work to be done, particularly on the referencing. I'd be happy to re-review it at a later stage if desired. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• I found it rather hard to tell in places when the "History" section was talking about this building, and when it was talking about the the College of Medicine Building etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The lead doesn't summarise the article (e.g. it doesn't tell us when the building was constructed, for example, or give any type of description of it). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• More than half of the article is entirely unreferenced. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• Hard to tell, as much of the article is unreferenced. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• It could really do with a basic description of the building - e.g. how big is it, how many floors etc.
• What happened to the building during World War II? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• The two photograph need a FoP-Singapore tags added. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)