Talk:Middle Road, Singapore/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The article does not currently meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at the present time. Specific issues with the article follow:
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
The biggest issue with the article is primarily lack of completeness. The 'landmarks' section has the most obvious problems, with a short paragraph under 'past' and just a list with three red links under 'present'. It really doesn't say anything about these landmarks, and how they are important to the development & history of the middle road area of singapore. A reorganization would be better. Start off by removing 'history' from 'etymology' -- the etymology section should really just contain information on the development of the word and how it is pronounced. Consider moving the pronunciation box near the top into this etymology section, and discuss in more details local names, rather than just the anglicized names.
Just have one section called history, and integrate the two major communities (hainanese & japanese) into the history section. The article talks about both communities separately, and says nothing about how the communities might have integrated and interacted through the years. Lacking this information is the major reason for failing the article on account of WP:NPOV.
A good copyedit, looking for some major grammatical flaws and sentence structure issues, would also be a good idea as well.
Hope this helps improve the article! Cheers! Dr. Cash 18:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for review & suggestions. Rgds -- Aldwinteo —Preceding comment was added at 04:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)