Talk:Government of Singapore/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • History: ...and the executive authority of the Parliament of Malaysia ceased to extend to Singapore and vested in the Singapore Government... unclear, poor grammar.

   • Fixed. — JackLee, 00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • The Lead is too long, WP:Lead section says no more than four paragraphs, consider editing the text down and reducing the length.

   • Fixed: OK, have shortened it and made it only four paragraphs long. — JackLee, 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • I fixed some dead links, I assume good faith for the print sources.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All sources appear reliable

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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):

   • I have doubts about whether File:Singov top 02.png is necessary.

   • Fixed: The image was in the article before I started improving it, so I just retained it. I agree that it's not serving much purpose, so I've removed it. — JackLee, 00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Please address my comments on the lead and rework the example of bad prose, and justify the use of the logo. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

   • Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've responded to your suggestions above. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
   • OK, no outstanding issues - I am happy to paas this as a Good Article - Congratulations and thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

   • Great, thanks very much! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)