Talk:Singaporeans/GA1

CLOSED

Review is being ended without a result since the new-to-Wikipedia reviewer was in over their head, and nomination is being put back into the nominations pool to await a new reviewer.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Breakjan (talk · contribs) 20:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Great work on the article!

Comment

This review appears to have been done in a matter of minutes by an enthusiastic, brand-new Wikipedian in their fifth edit—their third was another such quick review. As such, it is not surprising that a number of the criteria were not properly checked, and that the article turns out to need some work before it meets said GA criteria. I have reverted the premature passage and previously pointed out some of the issues to Breakjan on their talk page, which they unfortunately ignored in repassing the article today after passing and unpassing it yesterday.

The issues I pointed out, which are not a complete review by any means, were: it needs a great deal more in terms of in-line source citations before it can meet the verifiability criteria. There are also gaps in the coverage; for example, the Orang Laut are mentioned as the original inhabitants at the time the English made Singapore an open port in 1819, but the second paragraph under Indigenous populations contradicts itself regarding the numbers, and the final sentence is unsourced. There's also a mention of the Dutch with no explanation of why this is relevant.

Under the circumstances, and given that Breakjan passed the article again despite the points mentioned above, it seems clear they are not ready to be reviewing GANs at this time. At this point, the two possibilities are to put this back in with the other nominations awaiting a reviewer, or to try to get a new reviewer via the 2nd opinion status. If no one expresses an opinion in the next seven days, I'll do what seems best at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although seven days have not passed, the suggestion from the WT:GAN talk page was that I archive this review and put the nomination back in with the other nominations, so I'm going to do that. In addition, when I did a quick copyvio check, it turned up one: the entire final sentence in Language is practically a word-for-word copy from the source. So it seems wise to wait for a new reviewer; in the interim, I strongly suggest that nominator Krazio work on the issues identified here, so the article is better prepared for its next review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.