Talk:Bukit Batok Memorial/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 21:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this article, I don't believe it can achieve GA-class without a lot of extra work. My initial comments:

Lead

"tranquil" - non-encyclopedic language.
the lead states that Australian POWs built the memorials but the "Allies' Memorial Cross" section refers to an English bombardier, so presumably some British POWs contributed as well.
I suggest clarifying the location as being in Singapore closer to the start of the first sentence, rather than right at the end.

History

Probably could do with a bit more geographical discussion particularly as the next section refers to the MacRitchie Reservoir. Also a sentence summarising the Malayan campaign would provide greater context as well.

Allies' Memorial Cross

The section heading gives too much weight to one portion of this section. Only two sentences in the entire section specifically relate to the Allies' memorial. I would suggest renaming this section Construction or something similar and then deal with the two memorials separately.
The first sentence is confusing due to referring to POWs building three memorials, two of which are identified as the Indian National Army memorial and Syonan Jinja. This then leaves one unnamed memorial which presumably must be one of the Allies' Memorial or Syonan Chureito. This means four memorials built with POW labour. As I say, confusing.
POW should be written out in full on first usage.
"Japanese engineering commander-in-charge": I don't understand what this title is, the "engineering" is particularly confusing.
Artillery and Infantry should be lower case.
Did the Allies' Memorial have a plaque or the like? If so, what did the inscription read?
The final sentence lacks a cite.

Syonan Chureito

Again, the heading may place too much weight on the Japanese memorial as this section also discusses the Allies' Memorial. I think the content needs to be re-ordered.
This section starts off with a description of a, for lack of a better word, opening ceremony for the shrine. But the description of the shrine follows this; I think this should be reordered. I wonder if an opening ceremony or similar heading would be more appropriate.
fame - used twice in this article, possibly non-encyclopedic language.
solemn - possibly non-encyclopedic language.
Were the Allied POWs allowed to visit their Memorial Cross?
The final sentence lacks a cite.

Postwar years

Why does this section mention the Syonan Jinja memorial? This article isn't about that memorial.
Is the area now a park or reserve? The image of the stairs suggest it is open access.

Memorial plaque installed

This is a two sentence section, one sentence of which has nothing to do with the memorial plaque. I suggest combining this section under the previous, more generic Postwar heading.
Done Sections merged. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

I don't think you need this section as these are in the Major tourist attractions in Singapore template at the bottom of the article.
Done Section removed. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

For notes 4 and 7, the publications are not listed in the bibliography (place of publication, ISBN needed for note 7 as well).
The Lee entry in the bibliography is not cited at all (unless it is note 4 and "War Memorials and Shrines" is the chapter?)

External links

The link here is dead.
Done Removed external link, which is not necessary. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

Image tags OK.
Noted with relief. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One duplicate link - National Heritage Board. When adding text/revising the article, care should be taken ensure wikilinks are being used on their first appearance.
Done I went one step further and reduced the second mention to an abbreviation. The passive voice in the second mention was changed to an active voice. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No dab links.
Noted with relief. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, I believe this will need a lot of work to bring it up to GA-class. I should note that the above are just my initial comments; I will have a closer look at the prose once the nominating editor deals with the issues I have already noted. I will check back in a week to assess progress and determine if this should be closed. Zawed (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few things have been addressed and not much has happened since then. I will looking to close this in a couple of days as a fail. Zawed (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, I agree with you that the article is too far from meeting the GA criteria and should be failed. Thanks for your review and I may make the requested improvements at a later date. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]