Talk:Jack Sim/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Dawkin Verbier (talk · contribs) 13:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Stepping in to close this as inactive. Feel free to resubmit at any point to get a new reviewer. -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: ZyphorianNexus (talk · contribs) 00:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Lead
[edit]- The lead looks clear and well written. However, how about adding a caption to the image? A simple "Sim in 2017" for example, would do. The Wikipedia Commons file should have more info.
Business career
[edit]- About the part that says,
Sim watched a speech by then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on the social significance of clean public toilets.
It feels a bit out of place in the context of his business career, unless it directly affected his decisions and career. You could consider either proving additional context as to its subsequent relevance on his career, or omitting it to streamline the narrative.
Other social ventures
[edit]Sim founded BOP Hub, a non-profit organisation targeting bottom-of-pyramid individuals at the poorest global income margins in 2011, developing a $10,000,000 building in Ubi.
I'm trying to find a relationship between the building and the rest of the sentence. With the way it's currently structured, I interpret it as BOP Hub being the entity responsible for developing the building. Is that what it means? For clarity's sake, I think it may need rephrasing.
Citations
[edit]- I've not gone through the citations yet, but if you could add citation(s) to the places that were tagged as needing citation, it would be better.
Status query
[edit]- @Dawkin Verbier, @ZyphorianNexus, what's the status here? It doesn't look like there's been any movement on the article since the initial review. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Following up on asilvering's query after over a month: reviewer ZyphorianNexus hasn't edited Wikipedia since 10 May, two days after opening this nomination and nearly three months ago, and nominator Dawkin Verbier hasn't edited the article in those three months to address the issues raised in that review. If nothing has happened to change any of this in the next seven days, my suggestion would be to close the nomination as abandoned. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the lack of response since 28 June is enough to call it - I'll just close it as unsuccessful now rather than wait a week. -- asilvering (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Following up on asilvering's query after over a month: reviewer ZyphorianNexus hasn't edited Wikipedia since 10 May, two days after opening this nomination and nearly three months ago, and nominator Dawkin Verbier hasn't edited the article in those three months to address the issues raised in that review. If nothing has happened to change any of this in the next seven days, my suggestion would be to close the nomination as abandoned. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.