Talk:Language planning and policy in Singapore/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 10:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave some initial comments soon and will focus on copyediting issues. Thanks ☠ Jaguar ☠ 10:37, 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

"and their respective functions within the speech community through the education system." - throughout the education system
"which can result in a language shift or language assimilation" - flows better as which can result in a language shift or assimilation
Curiously enough Singapore isn't liked in the lead at all
"during two distinct periods: Colonisation by the British" - colonisation doesn't need to be capitalised
"and the Post-Independence period after 1965" - sounds like it gained independence from Britain in 1965 where in fact it was the expulsion from Malaysia that happened
The lead does not summarise the article - remember it needs to act as a "mini article" as if it was talking about every section in one. The lead of an article this size needs to be at least three paragraphs long (and I fear I have made a grave mistake passing the previous GAN because the lead was only a few sentences long)! The lead needs to be expanded before this can meet the GA criteria.

Background

The prose in this section doesn't flow. Try merging this into two paragraphs?
"Singapore is a linguistically and ethnically diverse country with a population of about 5 million" - is Singapore a city-state? And approximately five million
"Given this diversity, the language policy in Singapore aims at cultivating amongst its citizens a bilingual proficiency in the English language and a mother tongue that is officially assigned to the specific ethnic communities." - unreferenced and could be merged into one paragraph (as suggested before)

Motivations of language policies

"After political independence in 1959" - what about the expulsion from Malaysia in 1965?
The second paragraph is unreferenced and also could be merged into the first to create better readability
"Alongside English, the Singapore Government" - why isn't Singapore Government linked in the first sentence, as favoured by WP:MOS?

Status planning=

"Status Planning suggests" - shouldn't be in bold!
"The Speak Good English Movement is a government-initiated campaign" - this shouldn't be in bold either
The second paragraph is unreferenced

Acquisition Planning

""Acquisition Planning can be defined..." - shouldn't be in bold
"1)National Education, 2)Information Technology and 3)Thinking Skills, to the school curriculum" - per WP:MOS and MOS:BOLD, numbers shouldn't be in bold. There are also no spaces after the brackets

WP:ENGVAR

Which variant of English does this article use? For any GA, it has to use one form of English (either American or British spelling in this case). I'm seeing British suffixes used in some cases (ie. colonisation) and American spelling in others ("Internationalization"). I don't know what form of English this article started in, but it should use one form only, preferably British as it was a former colony?

Close - not listed

Sadly there is too much work to be done here before this can meet the GA criteria. The most serious of them all are the prose concerns and the lead - remember that the lead has to summarise the article (and now I'm worried I'm going to get in trouble for passing Death in Singapore because of its short lead). A lot of content here is unsourced and some paragraphs (especially in the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) section) are too short and should be merged. If all of those concerns above are addressed, you can take this back to me if you'd like and I can review it again? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]