Talk:Population planning in Singapore/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Will complete this within a day or two, at the most. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• The lead has issues; per WP:LEAD only the title of the article should be in bold and at the moment there are four highlighted terms in bold
• The lead is disorganised - try merging two paragraphs into one so it makes at least three, well written paragraphs
• "The government eventually became pro-natalist," - when?
• Some phrases that do not go into enough detail can leave the reader clueless, for example "After the outcry in the 1984 general elections it was eventually scrapped" - what outcry?
• Too many citations in the lead. Per WP:LEADCITE references should be kept at a bear minimum
• "Singapore experienced its highest birth rate in 1957 at 42.7 per thousand individuals." - unsourced
• The Stop at Two section's bullet points could be converted to prose. Also some claims are unsourced
• "establishing the Social Development Unit" - why is this in bold?
• In the The demographic transition and the Graduate Mothers Scheme section, try merging the last two paragraphs to increase readability
• There is a prose concern template in the Policy comparisons between Have Three or More and Stop at Two, starting 1988 section. I agree with it :L

References

• Ref 15 redirects
• Ref 16 is dead

Close - not listed

I'm really sorry to do this, seeing as that you have had to wait a while before this could be reviewed but in its current standing this article does not meet the GA criteria and the amount of work that needs to be put into it will take longer than an expected review. The main issue is the prose; at the moment the lead does not comply per WP:LEAD and there are also various other parts of the article which consists of bullet points - it has to be converted into prose to improve readability and flow. Feel free to renominate this article when yu think all of the above has been attending to and if you'd like, I could review it again. Regards 22:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)