Talk:Tan Chay Wa's tombstone trial/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) 12:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. The article was not entirely neutral, but I have copyedited it to address that. There are some key points on which the prose is not clear (below). It appears stable, sufficiently comprehensive to pass at GA. The image is appropriately licenced. Issues:

The article states "The Malayan National Liberation Front (MNLF), an organisation of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), was formed in 1968 for its armed struggle to overthrow the governments of Singapore and Malaysia, which the communists considered as inseparable." This is very unclear. Does it mean the MNLF was created by the CPM? Who is "its"? And what is meant by "for its armed struggle" - this makes little sense, as the CPM itself was engaged in armed struggle. Why would it create a separate organisation to pursue the same objectives as itself, by the same means? Further, in 1968, Singapore and Malaya/Malaysia were separate I believe, so "considered as inseparable" probably should read "considered should be part of a single country" or something similar. All in all, this sentence needs serious clarifying.

Clarification The CPM (an outlawed political party which gained influence in the trade unions) formed other groups to handle different aspects of the armed struggle. The MNLF focused on gathering information and supplies for groups such as the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), the military arm comprising guerillas operating in the jungles. You are correct that Singapore had separated from Malaysia by then (specifically, in 1965), but the communists disagreed with the separation and believed the two countries should be "a single political entity" (quoting the source). How should I explain this? --Hildanknight (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've revised accordingly; hope you're happy with it. I think we're done! Good job. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)\[reply]

@Hamiltonstone: Yes, your revisions look good. Thanks for your help! --Hildanknight (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite the discrepancy between the gun he was alleged to have possessed at the time of his arrest and the number presented as evidence at his trial..." What does the article mean by "the number"? And what kind of discrepency are we talking about? This does not make sense as it stands.

Done Removed mention of the discrepancy, which the source does not elaborate on. The statement itself is close paraphrasing of the source. Perhaps Aldwinteo, who is not a native speaker of English, did not feel comfortable rewriting a sentence from a book by an ang moh (white Westerner). --Hildanknight (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The court then heard that the CID was called into the case on 11 May 1983..." This implies there was already a case being run by someone else. Is that correct? Does it mean "THe court then heard that the CID opened a case..."? Or something else?

Done After reading the source, changed to the clearer "started investigating the tombstone". --Hildanknight (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence lacks a citation: "In mitigation, Jeyaretnam made the point that, apart from immediate family and friends, the public would not have known about the 'subversive' tombstone nor its inscription in Singapore's biggest cemetery."

Done The source for the rest of the paragraph mentions this too. Perhaps Aldwinteo forgot to repeat the citation. --Hildanknight (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references at all to contemporary news coverage in Singapore or Malaysia, despite the article claiming "it made Chay Wa much better known to the public than he may otherwise have been". Can this be rectified?

Not done To answer your question, I checked NewspaperSG, a comprehensive archive of Singapore newspapers (that is managed by the National Library Board). There is very little "contemporary news coverage" of him or the case (only two articles in 2003 and nothing else after 1988). --Hildanknight (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok. Do you think the text should still say "it made Chay Wa much better known to the public than he may otherwise have been", then? Is that claim itself in a later secondary source? hamiltonstone (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source (which dates to 1999) does make this claim and the case did attract international attention. There was plenty of coverage in the five years following the trial, so the case did make him better known to the Singaporean society at that time (the 1980s). --Hildanknight (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it I think. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lack of response. In Singapore, Hari Raya Puasa preparations and celebrations are ongoing. I can probably spare some time this week to make a trip to the library to find the book sources that Aldwinteo used. --Hildanknight (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left this for a while, and appreciate your commitment, but I think if you haven't had a chance to work on it by the end of the weekend, we'll close it this time, and you can bring it back to GA when you're ready. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]