The other language names should be included in the first sentence name parenthesis, with the names in italics (for the Latin names).
Comment: Is this really necessary? It will make the text within the parentheses very long. Also, what Latin name are you referring to? — JackLee, 11:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's you lucky day :P—I can't find any mention of it in the MoS, so I just have to let you solve this at your discretion (I do see your point of view in it getter really long). Sorry about the lack of specification; Latin alphabet-transcriptions of foreign languages should be in italics. Arsenikk(talk)09:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does not summarize the article—instead it overfucuses on the border issue; minimize the border issue to one paragraph, and include geographic information such as size, and the pre-1979 history.
On the same matter of the larger block quotes, I fail to see the use of the quotes in the history section; they do not contain any important information. There must surely be a better way of communicating to the reader the little information that is included in the quotes. I would advice that the amount of quotes used is reduced considerably, and only the most important or impounding used; I rest my claims on the essay WP:QUOTE.
In process Comment. There are three block quotes in the "History" section. The first is a 1598 quotation, which I thought was worth setting out as it is one of the earliest references to Pedra Branca in English. The other two are English translations of replies from the Sultan and Temenggung of Johor to a November 1844 letter sent to them by the Governor of the Straits Settlements, William Butterworth. This correspondence is particularly significant to the history of Pedra Branca because Malaysia claims that the understanding between Johor and the United Kingdom was that the latter were given permission to establish and maintain a lighthouse on Peak Rock or elsewhere, and did not amount to a cession of the island. It is Governor Butterworth's letter that Malaysia is still trying to locate, despite the ICJ having rendered its decision in the matter, as it believes the letter may alter the outcome of the dispute. — JackLee, 11:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC), updated 21:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hmmm, MOS:CAPS doesn't seem to deal specifically with this situation. It says that one should "[r]educe newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case: Replace 'WAR BEGINS TODAY' with 'War Begins Today'". On the other hand, "WP:MOS#Quotations" says, "Wherever reasonable, preserve the original style, spelling and punctuation." — JackLee, 04:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally two parenthesis should not follow each other, as in "(Order of Nila Utama) (First Class)"—unless this is a very specific writing for this order.
Comment: I think this is unavoidable in this case. The first phrase (e.g., "Order of Nila Utama") is an English translation of the Malay name of the award. The second phrase is, where applicable, the class of the award. — JackLee, 11:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think "WP:MOS#Brackets and parentheses" doesn't deal with the situation at hand, where the first set of parentheses encloses an English translation of a foreign-language phrase, and the second set encloses an element of the original phrase. I think this is one of those situations where we should apply WP:IGNORE. — JackLee, 04:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend splitting up the dispute section into subsections, and making the final section also a subsection. With "a Joint Technical Committee", it should only be capitalized if used with the (making it a proper noun); as it is with an "a" it is a common noun.
In process Fixed: Regarding "Joint Technical Committee", this is the proper name of the committee. I could say "... established a committee called the Joint Technical Committee", but this seemed a bit redundant. I'll change the sentence to this, though, if you prefer it. — JackLee, 11:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC), updated 14:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it nessesary with the detail to which Singapore awarded these post-case awards (taking the summary style into consideration)?
Comment: I think I've already summarized it sufficiently. I only indicated the names of those who received the higher awards. I think it's important to indicate the different awards conferred by the Singapore Government as it gives an idea of the different government agencies and departments involved in the case. — JackLee, 11:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm still working on making the changes, but I've put some responses above. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–11:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Passed as a Good Article. Congratulations! (and sorry for taking so long time).
I still disagree with the caps on Singapore—due to readability issues, and my opinion of caps in that situation being a typographical issue, not a matter of spelling, punctuation or grammar. However, I cannot hold you for it due to the complexity of the MoS on the issue. As suggestions for further work, perhaps the section "Physical attributes" should be a little longer (if there is anything to say). Otherwise it looks thorough and comprehensive. Most articles still need some copyediting after GA, but I cannot see anything obvious, but a better trained eye might. Arsenikk(talk)17:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! No worries about the delay. Thanks for your suggestions and for reviewing the article. P.S. I visited Oslo and Bergen on holiday earlier this year – had a great time, but found Norway a really expensive place! :-) — Cheers, JackLee–talk–20:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS): 
b (citations to reliable sources): 
