Talk:Disneyland with the Death Penalty/GA1

GA Review

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

I will review. @harej 10:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): see below

b (MoS): Nothing egregiously wrong, though there are some terms which should be linked. Furthermore, the "related topics" section is usually branded "See also". I would change this, but I want to see first if this was done deliberately.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Everything in the article is attributed to a source.

b (citations to reliable sources): Yes

c (OR): No original research
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Yes

b (focused): Yes

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: As far as I can see, this article is objective in its coverage.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: No edit wars.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Everything is properly tagged, though File:Aereakowloon.jpg is available simultaneously in the public domain and under a copyleft license, making it both copyright and uncopyrighted, which I am not sure makes any sense.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Yes
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose issues

"in relation to the pristine state of the Changi Airtropolis" — I believe pristine is the wrong term here. "Pristine" means very old and yet untouched, which does not suitably describe an international airport.
"Beyond the airport, he notes the cultivation of the organic environment into "all-too-perfect examples of itself", an abundance of golf courses." — Can you clarify what this means?
"Punctuating the article, he quotes a headline from the South China Morning Post detailing the trial of a cadre of economists, a government official and a newspaper editor for revealing a state secret – the Singaporean economic growth rate." — How does a quote punctuate an article? Also, what is the significance of the growth rate being a state secret... does it emphasize Singapore's obsession with capitalism, or its secret nature? Please clarify.
"Koolhaas argued that reactions of Gibson's sort implicitly withhold the intelligent use of the attainments of modernity from those who are not its natural descendents." — I notice that this was raised on the talk page. While I understand that we can't interpret what his words mean, I am not convinced this sentence means anything at all and is even worth including in the article.

Response

Namaste, harej, and thank you for the swift review. I'll respond to the issues you have raised by topic area; if you would prefer threaded discussion please feel free to move my comments to the appropriate places.

MoS: I recently delinked a lot of terms following WP:TONYLINKS. The section is intentionally titled "Related topics", as that is a more encyclopaedic title than "See also" in that it describes the content of the section, has a formal tone and does not direct the reader.

Image licensing: I believe what happened with File:Aereakowloon.jpg is that it was originally uploaded as public domain, but a GFDL tag was added in this edit, and the GFDL status was subsequently migrated to the Creative Commons license. I imagine the application of the GFDL was inappropriate, but either way the image is free to use on en.wiki.

Prose issues: I apologise in advance here, as I am not a native speaker and spent much of the article trying to avoid plagiarism and repetition, so awkward phrasings may be present.
- I've replaced "pristine" with "immaculate".
- By the organic environment having "all too perfect examples of itself", Gibson means that the ostensibly natural flora has been "improved" artificially by landscaping, horticulture etc.
- Quotations punctuate Gibson's article by breaking up the prose in the way a period breaks up compound sentences–just as how quotations and images are used in this article.
- Gibson gives no context or commentary on the "Finance Data a State Secret" story. To write one would be original research, to omit mention of it would be to fail to synopsise the article.
- Regarding the Koolhaas line, I believe it certainly has meaningful semantic content:
  - Qua Koolhaas, Gibson is the amused Westerner who sees the non-Westerners have appropriated much of Western technology/customs/culture ("modernity") without understanding it, producing—to Gibson the Westerner—bizarre, inauthentic and unpalatable results. For Koolhaas, Gibson's article contains the implicit claim that these non-Westerners should have followed their own organic mode of development (like Nairobi, or Bangkok); not to have built over their historical architecture for example, and should not have aped the worst parts of Western modernity. This claim would be, for Koolhaas, to tell non-Westerners that they cannot have the benefits of modern progress, which is condescending and prejudicial.
  - I'm reticent to dumb it down as it might introduce an unwelcome element of original research. Koolhaas is one of the most prominent figures in architectural criticism alive today, and it's the punchline of the whole critical reception section. I'm open to ideas on this point.

Thanks again for the review, and I look forward to your replies. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your responses. I am an inexperienced reviewer, so I will put the article up for a second opinion. @harej 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks again, and I hope you keep up the reviewing—this review struck a good balance between thoroughness and relevance I think. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 08:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Related topics

Regardless of how nice it works WP:LAYOUT says "see also" in the WP:SEEALSO section. Wikipedia standard applies here.

"Beyond the airport, he notes the cultivation of the organic environment into "all-too-perfect examples of itself", an abundance of golf courses." — Can you clarify what this means?

You should clarify it. If the reader has to question what he is trying to portray then it would help to add a few words summarizing it.

"Punctuating the article, he quotes a headline from the South China Morning Post detailing the trial of a cadre of economists, a government official and a newspaper editor for revealing a state secret – the Singaporean economic growth rate." — How does a quote punctuate an article? Also, what is the significance of the growth rate being a state secret... does it emphasize Singapore's obsession with capitalism, or its secret nature? Please clarify.

"Punctuating" line would be better in an essay. If an explanation is OR then "punctuating" is clearly commentary. The line also doesn't say the headline and the em dash is overly dramatic since it leaves the reader expecting more. Try rewording the complete line.

"Koolhaas argued that reactions of Gibson's sort implicitly withhold the intelligent use of the attainments of modernity from those who are not its natural descendents." — I notice that this was raised on the talk page. While I understand that we can't interpret what his words mean, I am not convinced this sentence means anything at all and is even worth including in the article.

It is bulky and has caused an editor on the talk page to ask about it and another to attempt an interpretation. Add the reviewer on top of that and it is obviously not necessary here. You are allowed to summarize it especially if you chose not to use quotations as you did. I also question its necessity especially when considering the other quotes in the section. Removal or reworking the line are needed.

I also notice that the captions for the images are too long. This causes an aesthetic concern as well as taking the focus off the prose. Shorten them up a bit and they will be great. Take a look at MOS:IMAGES and the related links.
The reviewer should also compare it to User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet. I have found that this is a great resource even if it is not perfectly followed.

The second opinion always comes across harsh but it is not meant to be. Overall I think the author did a great job and should be proud. All of the suggestions above are easy fixes and will improve the article which is a big part of this process.Cptnono (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cptnono for the second opinion. Don't worry about appearing harsh, please don't hold back – improving the article is the idea and we won't get far without being open about quality/problems. I hope to get to the comments in the next day or so. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 08:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Related topics: WP:SEEALSO does not proscribe alternate titles for such sections–these were only omitted from the guideline for brevity.
Harej has clarified the golf courses sentence.
The em dash is from the South China Morning Post article itself: "A government official, two private economists, and a newspaper editor will be tried jointly on June 21 for revealing an official Singaporean secret - its economic growth rate". Do you think it necessary to the headline entirely?
I'm not especially beholden to "punctuation", but in moving from a synopsis of Gibson's characterisation of the political history to a synopsis of the newspaper article, even an encyclopaedia article needs a transition phrase. I've reworked it; comments invited.
I was the editor who offered the interpretation of Koolhaas on the talkpage. The account is already reinforced by the secondary literature (Delbeke, Tang); further interpretation should not be necessary. The section has been reworked and expanded.
I try in captioning to describe the image and outline how it relates to the topic, following the MoS ("Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article"). That's going to be difficult if they are going to be any shorter. I've removed the quote from the skyscrapers image and abbreviated the Kowloon caption; please advise on whether this is sufficient.

Thanks again for the review, Skomorokh, barbarian 05:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remark I'm surprised that the critical reaction section doesn't describe more about Singaporean reaction to the term. Are the sources lacking, is there censorship, has the Republic of Singapore chosen to officially ignore it? I mean, last I checked, this kind of prominent article about a country is the sort of thing that provokes a national uproar in small nation-states. I don't think this is a bar to GA, necessarily, but it is a surprising hole in the coverage. Ray^Talk 18:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources; I used literally everything reliable I could find online. Remember this came out before the ubiquity of the web in a country that employs neither the English language nor the Latin alphabet to the extent of the West – not Google-friendly. If you come across anything, I'd be more than glad to integrate it. Cheers, Skomorokh, barbarian 18:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was intrigued by Skomorokh's message, so I ran a Factiva search on the term "Disneyland with the death penalty" to see if there had been any Singaporean news reports on Gibson's article. I did not find any; the only references were to the bare fact that Gibson had once called Singapore by that epithet. It therefore appears that the article has not figured on the Singaporean radar at all, either as regards the government or the people. Kudos, by the way, for an interesting and balanced article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of pointing out the obvious: all Singaporean media are government-controlled, and they censor everything that does not paint the country in a positive light. (Which is why Wired was banned.) Jpatokal (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's quite as bad as that. Wired is certainly not banned in Singapore. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, any outstanding issues chaps? Skomorokh, barbarian 10:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to wait for the original reviewer. It doesn't appear that the are coming back but as the second opinion I am going to pass this article after reading the comments by Jack Lee. I still believe that the caption for the skyscraper image needs to be reduced but that shouldn't stand in the way of promotion. Cptnono (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks to Cybercobra, Ray, Jack and especially harej and Cptnono for all the helpful commentary and support – it's remarkable to have so much constructive feedback and advice on such an article! Mahalo, Skomorokh, barbarian 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]