Talk:General elections in Singapore/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The quality of the prose is not relevant at this time, as the majority of the content in the article will need to be removed and restructured.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All of the material is covered by inline citations. All of the sources used are reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sadly, the vast majority of the meticulously-researched content in this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. The entire article is essentially just an explanation of everything in the Singaporean constitution and legislation that is relevant the parliamentary elections, something that is explicitly forbidden per WP:NOTMANUAL. What it should do instead is summarize what other authors have written about the subject; everything that appears in Further reading should be used as a source. The technical details and procedures should be condensed to one section which contains only the most essential elements.

   Once that's done, the lead (which is the largest I've ever seen, and not justifiably so) needs to be rewritten to summarize the article's contents in a way that will actually make sense to an uninformed reader. As it currently stands, the lead launches into completely uninformative jargon without even bothering to explain any of the broad ideas that a reader might want to know—that this is a direct election, for example.

   I am of the opinion that the amount of work that needs to be done is sufficient reason for me to immediately fail the article. Once the article has been restructured, I will gladly reevaluate it. I will also provide further feedback if any of the above is unclear.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The content presented in the article does not lend itself to POV issues. The People's Action Party and the Workers' Party are mentioned more often than the other parties, but that's not problematic since they are the two most popular parties.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Only a handful of edits have been made in the past few months, none of which drastically changed the content.

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):

   • Image licenses are fine.
   • I don't believe that this image adds anything to the article.
   • All captions are sufficiently informative and are largely unproblematic, except this one: "...who is the Chief Justice or a Supreme Court judge nominated by him." Shouldn't "nominated" be "appointed"?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: