Talk:Denise Phua

Proposed move to Denise Phua

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was -- Based on this conversation Use the most easily recognized name and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Order of names -- was to move the article to Denise Phua. When more than one Denise Phua notable person is listed here then the page can be moved to Denise Phua Lay Peng. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for proposed move: Singaporean Chinese who have an English given name are usually referred to by their English given name, followed by their Chinese surname. See, for example, Jack Neo, Jasper Chan and Olivia Lum. Googling "Denise Phua" returns about 2600 results, while Googling "Phua Lay Peng" returns about 250 results. Similarly, most newspaper articles about her (I have several hundred, which were e-mailed to me through Factiva) refer to her as "Denise Phua". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is actually no "naming convention" on this one, and unless that name is a well-established one (such as Jack Neo), we spell them in full to ensure we don't have to disambiguate them in future.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The usual "official" order for Singaporeans with both Christian and Chinese given names is Christian given name followed by surname followed by Chinese given name with no commas. Thus this MP's name would be Denise Phua Lay Peng which is confirmed by her biosketch at her parliamentary webpage[1]. So, support a move to Denise Phua Lay Peng. — AjaxSmack 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Terence, a former SGpedian, through Google Talk; he agrees with the proposed move. Although I am not familiar with the MOnSter, I think that the naming conventions that apply in this situation are those regarding common names, people and Chinese names.

When a Singaporean Chinese has an English given name, the order used in their IC is usually Chinese surname, followed by Chinese name, followed by English given name (although some place their English given name before their Chinese surname and Chinese name). However, the naming conventions state that common names are preferred over official names, except under special circumstances which do not apply here.

According to Google, "Denise Phua" is the more common name, occuring ten times as often as "Phua Lay Peng" (which would cover both instances of "Phua Lay Peng Denise" and "Denise Phua Lay Peng"). Almost all of the newspaper articles I have refer to her as "Denise Phua"; perhaps someone with access to Factiva (or a similar resource) could search the database for "Denise Phua" and "Phua Lay Peng" to confirm whether most newspaper articles indeed refer to her as "Denise Phua". There are no other notable Denise Phuas, so disambiguation should not be a reason to keep her Chinese name in the article title.

The naming conventions regarding people also state that the "first name, then last name" format is used by default. Phua is Chinese and that might be a reason to make an exception, but the Chinese naming conventions mention a counter-exception "for figures who were raised in non-Chinese societies and whose Chinese names are unfamiliar". This might apply to her, since Singaporean Chinese who have English given names are usually addressed by their English given names (followed by their Chinese names, if appropriate) and their Chinese names are, in some cases, rarely known.

Of course, feel free to raise counter-arguments. What matters is that the article is appropriately titled.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of what you say but, since the subject's own biosketch at her parliamentary webpage and website of the Autism Resource Centre (of which she is president) both use a particular name, I prefer a move to Denise Phua Lay Peng over a choice based on Google hits and personal speculation. On the other hand, Denise Phua is better than the current title. — AjaxSmack 02:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to me, Denise Phua is just more clear than... Phua Lay Peng Denise. Why not move the article so that other Wikipedians can get to know what they want to know better.Ruennsheng (Talk) 07:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Use the way it's done on her official webpage, per AjaxSmack. 70.55.85.143 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On references

WP:CITE - could the internet references get access dates (and publication dates, etc., if known) please. Giggy (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Several minor disputes

Before the article is nominated for GA status, several minor disputes need to be dealt with.

Should the Personal life section be removed?

At the peer review, Delldot said: "I can see how with an obscure person it'd be tempting to include whatever info you can get but I think it's also important to keep the article focused and to exclude uninformative material." Indeed, the Personal life section currently contains all I could find out about her personal life. I think the section should be removed, due to lack of encyclopediac information and potential BLP issues. However, Giggy disagrees, and there was a recent discussion on WT:GAN about whether biographies without Personal life sections do not meet the "broadness" section of the GA criteria.--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw-poll-cum-discussion:

• Remove Personal life section per my arguments above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  Further notes: Both Roux and Jacklee said that while a separate Personal life section is unnecessary, some information about her personal life should be merged into other sections if it is relevant to her notability and helps provide context. That her son is autistic has been widely documented, helps provide context and is already mentioned in the Volunteer work section. On the other hand, the sentence about her family volunteering at Pathlight is clearly filler that needs to go.

  What about the information about her hobbies, husband and daughter, then? In my opinion, it is neither relevant to her notability nor useful in providing context. If so, votes to merge information into other sections can be treated as votes to remove the Personal life section entirely. But others may disagree, so I encourage those who disagree to state why they think this information is important and where it should go. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Minimise A couple of sentences on her personal life seem relevant to the context of why she does what she does. Merge into another section as appropriate; an entire section devoted to her personal life doesn't seem necessary. [ roux ] [x] 05:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into main body of article: In general, personal life sections can be useful as they hold information that does not fit into other parts of an article. They also give a more rounded view of a person. However, where, as in this case, there isn't much personal information available anyway, I would suggest merging the facts that are more important and do not breach anyone's privacy into the main body of the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Minimize - Her family is not the reason for writing the article. Keep core material such as number of children and the connection to what she does don't go far beyond that. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Since the section is tiny at the moment, it should be removed and incorporated into the lede. Also, we don't need to know that she enjoys reading by the sea - only the "vital biographical stats" need be moved into the lede. At some point if she becomes more well known, a more detailed (but not overboard) summary of her personal background could be developed into the article. Avruch ^T 03:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• I didn't mean to advocate ditching the whole section, just irrelevant stuff like "she enjoys reading..." I think her family's reasonable to include as long as there are multiple reliable sources to attribute the info to. Uncontroversial verifiable material like that isn't a BLP concern. If the section's too tiny when it's complete, it can be integrated elsewhere. delldot ∇. 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

British English

Since Phua is a Singaporean and Singapore, as a former British colony, uses British English, the article should definitely be written in British English. Whether the article is currently written in British English - and only British English - is unclear. For starters, the serial comma is usually not used in British English, but is used in this article, perhaps because the MOnSter says that references should go after punctuation. That section of the MOnSter is not considered part of the GA criteria, so should the serial commas go, to ensure the article is written in British English? Another issue is whether nouns like "school" and "Ministry of Education" are singular nouns or plural nouns. As far as I know, collective nouns are considered plurals in British English, but are the above nouns considered collective? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw-poll-cum-discussion:

• Abstain I will defer to native speakers, though my opinion is that serial commas should be avoided and the nouns are collective (and hence plural). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  Further notes: The dispute is not about which national variety of English to use. I think we all agree that British English should be used. However, we disagree on what British English means. Should serial commas be used in British English? Are the nouns considered singular or plural? That is what we are disagreeing about. Roux's comment suggests he may have misunderstood the dispute, so I felt I should clarify it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed - seems like a logical argument; UKEng should be used. [ roux ] [x] 05:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree: British English is the norm in Singapore and should be used in Singapore-related articles.
  • Serial commas: In general, serial commas are not used in lists, though one must be flexible about this. Where a list consists of single words or short phrases, I would omit the serial comma (e.g., "Pancakes contain flour, eggs and milk"). However, I would use a comma where a list consists of longer phrases and the comma would provide clarity (e.g., "The constitution of a nation serves several purposes: it establishes the structures of government, it sets out the limitations on the branches of government, and it guarantees fundamental rights to citizens").
  • Collective nouns: The Collins COBUILD English Grammar (HarperCollins, 1990, reprinted 2000) says, at pp. 16–17, "When you use a collective noun, you can use either a singular verb or a plural verb after it. You choose a singular verb if you think of the group as a singular unit, and a plural verb if you think of the group as a number of individuals. ... The names of many organizations are collective nouns, and can be used with a singular or plural verb." The following examples were given:

"Our little group is complete again."
"A second group are those parents who feel that they were too harsh."

"The BBC is sending him to Tuscany for the summer."
"The BBC are planning to use the new satellite next month."

"The government has said it would wish to do this only if there was no alternative."
"The government have made up their minds that they're going to win."

Therefore, whether school and Ministry of Education should be used with singular or plural verbs and pronouns depends on the context. In the article, it seems that they are used to mean singular units rather than the people making up the units (e.g., "The school offers [not offer] ... life skills education to its students"; "... special education should be led by the Ministry of Education (MOE), as it [rather than they] had more resources and expertise ..."), so I would use singular verbs and pronouns with them. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - Reasonable argument, but I don't have a perspective on this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• supportIn favour of using British English after all Singaporean English is British.

Danger^Mouse (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Standard practice in this sort of issue is to use the form of English in which the article was originally written. It avoids disputes and edit warring over switching back and forth between American and British forms. Avruch ^T 03:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• UK English: Serial commas are known in UK English as Oxford commas, because they are endorsed by Oxford University Press. In others words: yes, serial commas are often used in UK English, and are essential in situations which might otherwise be ambiguous. (See Serial comma#Usage, which outlines the mandatory/not mandatory opinions: you will see there no simple geographical split.) In most situations, "school" and "Ministry of Education" are singular, because they are thought of as a unit. Occasionally, they might be considered as a collection of individuals, in which case plural is appropriate. Gwinva (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Others

If I notice other disputes, I will add them here, but I hope there are no more and that these two disputes can be quickly resolved. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussions closed

Since the article will go on GAN tomorrow, both discussions shall be closed. The consensus:

• The article should not have a Personal life section. Relevant information in the Personal life section chould go into other sections. However, I do not see how any of the information in the Personal life section could be smoothly integrated into other sections - and hardly any of the information there seems relevant anyway. Hence I simply removed the section.
• Per Jacklee and Gwinva, serial commas are fine and collective nouns can be singular or plural, but in the context they are used in the article, should be singular. I discounted the comments of others, who misunderstood the issue.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Flickr photograph of Denise Phua

There's a photograph of Denise Phua at http://www.flickr.com/photos/deafboleh/1311901583/. You may want to try contacting the uploader to see if he or she will license the photograph under a CC-BY-2.0 or CC-BY-SA-2.0 licence so that it can be used in the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Liddat ah? Aiyoh, that photo si beh no standard leh! See her enough ready, why behind got tree and so many people oso ah? Eh, she gahmen leh, dun pray pray, sekali gahmen kaypoh, come here, see the no standard photo, den how to take cover? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

:-) The photo doesn't have to be used in its entirety. If licensed under an appropriate Creative Commons licence, it can be cropped to show just Phua's head and shoulders. See, for instance, "Feng Tianwei". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted a comment on flickr asking if the photographer would re-license it, someone should keep an eye on that page. Giggy (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Category

Any idea why the categories aren't showing up for me? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I can see them fine. Have you tried forcing a page reload? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes for GA reviewer

• The article is very short because there is very little referenced information available about Phua (or most Singapore-related topics, for that matter).
• According to the GA criteria, "[the] presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for good articles". The article used to have a photo of her, but the anti-fair use brigade deleted it, so I am not to blame for the lack of photos.
• An infobox seems pointless, as there is no photo and limited information about her. The GA criteria do not require infoboxes either.
• Above, there is a discussion with consensus that the article should not have a Personal life section, due to the lack of relevant information and BLP concerns.
• Since Phua is Singaporean and Singapore, as a former British colony, uses primarily British English, the article should be written in British English.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Denise Phua/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Everything looks great in this article, so I am going to pass it to GA status. Nice work! If, at some point in the future, a free-use image becomes available, it would be fantastic for it to be included in the article. However, as you have pointed out on the talk page, an image is not a requirement of GA, and so will not hold up this pass. If you have any questions, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hooray! This is my third GA. I will write many more - I Not Stupid Too is currently on GAN, while Yip Pin Xiu is on PR. Hope I will also score an A for my project about her, which was the reason why I wrote this article. When my groupmates cited this article in our report, I knew I had done a good job (and needed to reprimand them). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing date of birth

Hi, J.L.W.S. I have just noticed that Phua's date of birth was omitted from the article. I remember flagging this up during the article's peer review, but looking through the archive I noticed that your response to this was that although this information was on the Parliament of Singapore website, that source "gives her date of birth as 09.12.1959, which could mean 9 December or 12 September. Although Singapore uses international dates, that is nevertheless ambiguous. I could not find another reliable source which unambiguously states her date of birth (a Google search only turned up several Wikipedia mirrors), so her date of birth should not be mentioned." I missed this response.

I'm afraid your reasoning is not particularly convincing, for the following reasons:

• There is no reason to suppose that the Parliament of Singapore has, inexplicably and in contravention of the usual practice in Singapore, decided to state all dates in the month-day-year format on its official website.
• In any case, it is clear from the CVs of other Members of Parliament that birth dates have been set out in the usual day-month-year order. Sylvia Lim's CV, for example, indicates her birth date as "28.03.1965".
• The use of Phua's full date of birth in the article does not raise any BLP concerns. She is an adult. As a Member of Parliament, she is a public figure. As indicated above, the information is in the public domain, on the Parliament of Singapore's official website.

It is important to provide the birth (and, where applicable, death) dates of the subject of a biographical article. This is because, without this information, it is difficult to discern what era the person lived in. As it now stands, the article could possibly refer to a person who lived in the 19th, 20th or 21th century. Readers should not have to try and guess this information. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to all living people, not only minors. We always have to be cautious about potential BLP problems. With minors like Yip, we have to be even more cautious than we normally are, but normally we should already be very cautious. I do not want to mess with our government and get SUED IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY TAMPINES, SINGAPORE. Including her birth year is fine and will let readers know her age. If you believe her birthday should be added, I can contact several admins who are familiar with the BLP policy, to ask them whether including her birthday would be fine. Right now, I am on the fence and just want to ensure we Do The Right Thing. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information" says:

Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth.

I don't see how there can be any doubt about Phua's notability. She is a sitting Member of the Parliament of Singapore, and her date of birth appears in full on Parliament's website. Further, you have succeeded in taking the article to GA status, which is more than enough confirmation that she is notable. The fact that Phua is an adult is significant if it is argued that minors deserve greater protection (which appears to be a major reason why Yip Pin Xiu's full date of birth was not stated even though she is also notable). As for being sued or charged in court, that is simply not going to happen. The information itself is not confidential – again, it appears on Parliament's website – so there cannot possibly be any breach of confidentiality. (In any case, I don't see how Phua could argue that you owed her an obligation of confidence since there is no pre-existing relationship of confidence between the two of you – have you even met her before?) There is no tort of privacy in Singapore, and in any case the information is not private. Yes, if it would make you feel more comfortable, go ahead and consult the admins familiar with the BLP policy. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I want to make a decision on the BLP issues, I just want to inform yall that the date format is dd-mm-yyyy. See this CV from the same site as an example. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I have never met Phua before. I wish I could! My PW group tried to arrange a visit to Pathlight to meet her (and the kids), but Pathlight told us we could not come. Sigh. I e-mailed several admins and hope they will respond soon. In the meantime, I will be bold and add her birth year (and only her birth year) for now, since doing so is clearly fine and would let readers know her age (one of your arguments for including her birth date). By the way, the text in capital letters is a reference to an infamous vandal/troll, active when I was a very new editor, who often made legal threats. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As quoted above "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." (emphasis mine) From the above discussion, it doesn't appear that her birthday has been widely published, rather it is available on one website. For that reason, I would just put the year, which solves the issue of what era she lived while avoinding the possibility for increased risk of identity theft, etc. لennavecia 15:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the importance and official nature of a source be taken into account, in addition to the mere number of sources? The information in question appears on the official website of the Parliament of Singapore, which is a key source (apart from Wikipedia, perhaps) that people can consult for information about Phua. For purposes of comparison, a Google search I conducted on Ted Strickland, the Governor of Ohio (picked by me at random), using the search terms "Ted Strickland" and "date of birth", did not throw up any reliable website in the first three pages of search results stating his birth date, though I note from the Wikipedia article that his birth date appears at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=s001004. Yet the birth date appears in his Wikipedia article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Denise Phua is a GA, Ted Strickland is not. His date of birth is unreferenced, suggesting that the article has not undergone scrutiny and should not be considered a model for other biographies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed a modification to WP:BLP at the guideline's talk page. Do join the discussion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to change a policy to win a dispute is considered bad form. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I take your point that "Ted Strickland" is not a GA and so may not have undergone as much scrutiny as "Denise Phua", but that doesn't change the fact that the present BLP policy seems a bit narrow and fails to recognize the quality of sources rather than the quantity. I am not proposing a change to the policy simply to win an argument here. Rather, I think the present discussion has highlighted a weakness of the BLP policy which I think ought to be addressed, which is why I have initiated discussion on the matter. Encyclopedias are meant to provide comprehensive information to readers, and where biographical articles are concerned I would say that a full date of birth is pretty basic information. I cannot see why inclusion of a full date of birth is objectionable when the information is from a reliable source and the subject is of full age and a public figure. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, two key questions to consider are:

• Is Phua a "public figure"? Jacklee says that "[as] a Member of Parliament, she is a public figure". However, she is hardly a household name in Singapore and my research turned up very little information about her personal life (which was why I removed the Personal life section).
• Is her birthday "widely published"? The Parliament of Singapore is clearly a reliable and official source. But it is still only one source and no other reliable sources mention her birthday.

Discussion among BLP experts will help answer these questions. If and only if the answers to both questions are "yes" should her birthday be included.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that one key question is whether Phua is a "public figure". I would say that she is, on the basis that she is a Member of the Parliament of Singapore. One should bear in mind the need to counter systemic bias, and recognize that just because a Google search does not turn up much about Phua does not mean she is not a public figure. A Factiva search I conducted turned up more than 300 articles dating back to at least 2000 from Singaporean news sources such as Channel NewsAsia, The Straits Times and Today that mention "Denise Phua". I grant that not all of these articles may refer to the subject of this article, but believe that a substantial number of them do.
• I have already said that I believe the criterion requiring a date of birth to be "widely published" may be unduly narrow and fails to have regard to the quality of certain sources.

I look forward to hearing what the BLP experts have to say about this. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Denise Phua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323105036/http://www.family.sg/SPECIALPEOPLE/2006/07/11/en-us/0000003/article.aspx to http://www.family.sg/SPECIALPEOPLE/2006/07/11/en-us/0000003/article.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724082215/http://www.podcast.sg/938live/passion_people/audio/DenisePhua_030107.mp3 to http://www.podcast.sg/938live/passion_people/audio/DenisePhua_030107.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

New photograph at Commons

The following photograph of Denise Phua has been uploaded to Commons and is pending OTRS verification:

• Denise Phua.jpg

Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Denise Phua

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

This article was promoted in 2009 and appears to have been the target of conflict of interest editing recently. In particular, these series of edits by Chocomudpie removed criticism about Phua and also information about her going against the party line. It also introduced puffery especially in the "Mayor of Central Singapore District" section. As such I believe the article now fails criteria 1b (particularly on words to watch), 3 (broad in its coverage, as it now omits criticism) and 4 (neutral). Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 04:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)