Talk:Death in Singapore/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 10:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave some initial comments very soon. Thanks. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 10:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

This is a concern. The lead needs to be expanded by another paragraph if it were to meet the GA criteria. Try shifting more content in from around the article? The lead needs to summarise the whole article.

Legal definition of death

Not sure if this section complies per WP:MOS. It mostly comprises of bullet points and less prose however I don't see this as affecting the GA criteria.

Not done Will leave it alone for now. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of death

"Between 2004 and 2011, the number of executions varied between 0 and 10" - Between 2004 and 2011, the number of executions varied between none and 10

Done --Hildanknight (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of body after death

"he is required by the Criminal Procedure Code[30] to refer the case to the police." - citation after full stop

Done, please check my minor edits to the sentence. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph in the 'Present' section is largely unreferenced
"Foreigners who die outside Singapore are allowed to be cremated in the country" - which country? The country they died in?

Please check my rewrite of the sentence. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

The tool server is currently down so I had to check the references manually. They all seem to be working properly and I couldn't find any that seemed unreliable (not for this topic). The citations are also in their correct places so this meets the GA criteria.

On hold

Instead of failing this article I believe that this can be salvaged. The major concerns standing in the way of this becoming GA include the lead section (it needs to be greatly expanded) and the other prose issues I have mentioned above. Overall the article needs a cleanup and a copyedit. If you can address all of these issues then I'll have another look at it and see if it meets the GA criteria. I'll leave this on hold for seven days. Best of luck, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 10:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I tried dealing with the prose issues. Will work on the lead and unreferenced paragraph over the next few days. Feel free to provide more specific examples of "a cleanup and a copyedit" that the article needs. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Hildanknight, sorry I should have been clearer. The whole article doesn't need a copyedit, but in some instances the prose could do with some tightening. One thing I'm seeing is "In such proceedings, the fact that for seven years or more the other party to the marriage has been continually absent from the applicant" - could be read out clearer. But the majority of the prose looks good. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Perhaps you could compile a list of such examples? I assume that, unlike most Singaporeans, you are a native speaker of English. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Hildanknight, looking at the improvements you made I believe that this article meets the GA criteria as it is. The prose has already been improved up to a GA standard and now it is more readable. I done a minor copyedit to a part of the article and upon reading it a second time I think the prose is fine. If anybody else doesn't think so they could submit this for a reassessment but I don't think that would be likely. Anyway, well done! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]