Talk:Singapore Improvement Trust/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 07:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

It's good to see articles on important but unglamorous topics like this at GAN. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• " and ordering the demolition of buildings it deemed unsanitary for people to live in" - bit awkward wording
  • I've rewritten it as "marking out unsanitary buildings for demolition".
• Should Housing and Development Authority and the Planning Authority be linked? (including red linked?)
  • Housing and Development Authority has been linked to Housing and Development Board, but I don't believe that the Planning Authority should be linked.
• "called for back-lane improvement schemes, which had minimal effects on the surroundings" - it's not clear what this means
  • I've rewritten the statement as "the construction of back lanes", and included the reason for constructing the back lanes.
• "with Edwin Percy Richards as deputy chairman" - who was the chairman? (or was the SIT led by the Municipal Commission's deputy?
  • Sources aren't clear about this, so I've removed the statement.
• "was rejected by the government in 1924" - which government? (the local Singapore colonial government, the city council, the UK government, etc?)
  • The colonial government (added to article).
• More broadly, the 'background' section should place the Trust in the context of how Singapore was run in the pre-war colonial era.
  • Added a statement stating that the SIT was intended to control housing and planning in Singapore.
• Please provide the relevant page number for each time reference 7 (Fraser, James M. (April 1952). "Town Planning and Housing in Singapore") is cited - a range of 20 pages is too large
  •  Done
• "The SIT lost the case, so such declarations were no longer carried out" - was this because the case established that the SIT lacked the power to do this, or were they regarded as too difficult after the court case?
  • The declarations were regarded as too difficult.
• What happened to the SIT during Japanese occupation? Was it disbanded?
  • I've added a statement noting that the Japanese authorities took over the SIT's responsibilities during that time period.
• Please provide the exact pages the cited material is supported by for references 1, 22 (where there seems to be an error in the page range field), 26 and 27
  •  Done
• "a Senior Staff with 24 officers, a Subordinate Staff with over 200 personnel, as well as around 300 workers who acted as supervisors or carried out maintenance" - when was this as of? (presumably the number of workers varied over time?)
  • The source states that this was as under the Improvement Ordinance with amendments, so I've put the publication date of the source (1952).
  • I've added my responses to the comments. R22-3877 (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Those changes look great, and I'm very pleased to pass this nomination. Thanks for your work on this very interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spot checks were fine

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Spot checks did not detect any issues, and the article's prose is not suggestive of copyright violations

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: