Talk:Government of Singapore/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment
- The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
- The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
- The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
History: ...and the executive authority of the Parliament of Malaysia ceased to extend to Singapore and vested in the Singapore Government... unclear, poor grammar.
- Fixed. — JackLee, 00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- b (MoS):
The Lead is too long, WP:Lead section says no more than four paragraphs, consider editing the text down and reducing the length.
- Fixed: OK, have shortened it and made it only four paragraphs long. — JackLee, 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
- I fixed some dead links, I assume good faith for the print sources.
- b (citations to reliable sources):
- All sources appear reliable
- c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its scope.
- a (major aspects):
- b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- I
have doubts about whether File:Singov top 02.png is necessary.
- Fixed: The image was in the article before I started improving it, so I just retained it. I agree that it's not serving much purpose, so I've removed it. — JackLee, 00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Please address my comments on the lead and rework the example of bad prose, and justify the use of the logo. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've responded to your suggestions above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, no outstanding issues - I am happy to paas this as a Good Article - Congratulations and thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Great, thanks very much! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
