Talk:2023 Singaporean presidential election/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hello, I intend to review this article later. Thank you! 23:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Main concern: My main concern with this article is similar to my concerns with Talk:Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019/GA1: this article suffers from too many questionable sources. To be clear, some of the below sources are not fully unreliable. Depending on context, they can be used. But, primarily basing the article on such sources is a no-go for GAs. This is especially true since many of these source have a COI with the government of Singapore. As such, there are likely NPOV issues in this article too. Sources include:

The Straits Times (cited 70+ times): The Straits Times (TST) is currently rated as WP:MARL at RSP. Additionally, the last RfC indicated that "news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt." Given that this entire article concerns the Singaporean election, we should probably not rely on this source too much. Likely neutrality issues as well.
channelnewsasia (cited 80+ times): Based on this post at RSN, the overall reliability of CNA is kinda mixed with participants saying it should be treated the same as TST on matters concerning Singaporean politics.
Mothership (cited 25+ times): In this archive, one editor commented "Also most of the media sources you bring up are not reliable (mothership, vulcanpost)." In this unanswered tread, the OP stated "Looking at their about us page, there's nothing too suspicious, though the site didn't stand out as clearly reliable to me either".
DollarsandSense: (cited 2 times): No mention of this source at RSN but it appears questionable as I was unable to locate the site’s editorial team, editorial polices, etc.
devdiscourse (cited 2 times): Also appears questionable (no editorial team, editorial polices, etc.)
mustsharenews.com (cited 4 times): This site does have an editorial policy but no masthead
Various social media posts (Instagram, Tik Tok, Reddit, Linkedln): These sources are not being used for ABOUTSELF reasons. Please use reliable, secondary sources.
Various podcasts: honestly, the entire “social media” section is not appropriate and needs to go.

All-in-all, this article contains about 200 references to questionable or unreliable sources. I will unfortunately need to quick fail this article as it is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. I will let a more experienced reviewer close this. Thank you and good luck on improving the article! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, The Straits Times is the newspaper of record of Singapore. It would be quite difficult to avoid using it on Singapore-related topics. Omitting it entirely will lead to many of the contents here as well as many other Singapore-related articles being left uncited. However, I agree with you that there are other less than reliable sources that are still present in this article. Nevertheless, I am no longer focused at this present moment on having this article being turned into a GA and will not object to a fail, even if it would be reviewed by a different reviewer. Thank you. OOOTenx (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I alluded above that refs like STS are not unreliable and can be used depending on context. It’s the sheer amount of citations to STS that’s the problem. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d:, I'll have a look at this review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first start with immediate failures.

Whether the article meets any of the six good criteria will be known later.
I've checked whether the article has copyright violations using this tool, there appears to be none.
It does not have cleanup banners, but it has several tags in the article that should be resolved first before nominating the article for a GA review. I've added a couple of more {{citation needed}} tags to parts of the text that are unsourced.
The article is stable, there does not appear to be any edit warring in the recent period.
This is the first GA nomination of this article.

Just by looking at this, I'd quickfail the article because it has several unresolved tags. Making sure that everything in the article is backed up by reliable sources is important for a modern Good Article. Still, the nomination could also be quickfailed if it clearly does not meet any of the main six criteria.

I had a look at some parts of the text and IMO, I think that it'll have to get copyedited in order to improve the readibility of the text. WP:GOCER is the place to request copyediting of an article. Before nominating the articles, I had a couple of my now-GA articles copyedited and they were vastly improved by GOCE volunteers, so I'd definitely recommend that.
There are now two {{citation needed}} tags. As Dr.Swag Lord also said, there are also questionable sources in the text that should not be used at all.
The article has images, and they are all properly licensed, so there are no issues with that.

Therefore, I'd quickfail the article because of several reasons: it has unresolved cleanup tags, questionable and unreliable sources, and the prose is not really clear. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.