Talk:Non-constituency Member of Parliament/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 09:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC) I'll do this review. I'll add comments below as I go through the article.[reply]

~~The external links in the lead should be removed, per WP:EL.~~
It wasn't until I read in the article that the PAP has been so dominant that in many elections no other party has won seats that I understood why this scheme was even considered. To someone unfamiliar with Singapore politics this is a key point, and I think it should be mentioned in the lead, and again in the first section, perhaps with a little more detail. Currently this information doesn't appear until the second paragraph of the "Reasons for the NCMP scheme" section. Perhaps that section should be first?
- I don't think that is a good idea, because the article then plunges straight into the reasons for the NCMP scheme without describing what the scheme is in the first place. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair enough. However, it really is an unusual arrangement, and I think the reader needs to know the answer early in the article. How about mentioning it towards the end of the lead? That places it after the (abbreviated) explanation of the NCMP that the lead provides, and mimics the placement of the information in the main article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  I added a mention of the dominance of the PAP in the second paragraph of the lead section. --Hildanknight (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the particular speeches in the section "Notable issues" worth selecting for coverage in the article? All the citations appear to be to the primary sources -- debates or the laws themselves. No doubt these members said many other things in parliament; what's the reasoning behind selecting these speeches to highlight?
- The information in the section was added by the students who worked on the article as a course project, so I just left it in. It does illustrate that NCMPs have contributed towards debate in Parliament. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, and that's worth something. I'll strike the comment, but just FYI, I suspect if you or Hildanknight were to take this to FAC, some reviewers might ask about the reasoning behind the selection of quotes. For GA I think it's OK to assume that the students selected material they knew was significant politically. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the previous articles on Singapore law, this article has several citations to online sources, so I plan to check a sample of them. The only one I've looked at so far is currently note 35, to J.B. Jeyaratnam's speech: the phrase "trick or ploy" is in the original, and although this is too short a phrase to make WP:CLOSE a real concern, I'd suggest changing it in any case -- synonyms are easy to find.
- I think just putting the phrase "trick or ploy" in quotation marks should suffice. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  My mistake -- the original actually says "is this a trick, is this a ploy...?" I cut it to just "ploy" in the article, and left the quotes in, so I'm striking my comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a few other citations and found no issues, so the above are the only problems with the article.

I'm placing the article on hold to allow time to respond to the issues raised above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been taken care of so I am passing the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks again for your hard work. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]