Talk:Tan Teck Guan Building

Tan Teck Guan Building was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 18, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from Tan Teck Guan Building appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 September 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Tan Teck Guan Building (pictured) was the site of Singapore's first medical school, and has been conserved as a national monument?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/September.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tan Teck Guan Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 06:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fail this article at this stage, as there is still a lot of work to be done, particularly on the referencing. I'd be happy to re-review it at a later stage if desired. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

I found it rather hard to tell in places when the "History" section was talking about this building, and when it was talking about the the College of Medicine Building etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The lead doesn't summarise the article (e.g. it doesn't tell us when the building was constructed, for example, or give any type of description of it). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;

More than half of the article is entirely unreferenced. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

Hard to tell, as much of the article is unreferenced. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

It could really do with a basic description of the building - e.g. how big is it, how many floors etc.
What happened to the building during World War II? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

The two photograph need a FoP-Singapore tags added. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tan Teck Guan Building. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sgh.com.sg/NR/rdonlyres/40E7E746-A682-48F1-8819-F510CA64EFD5/2741/CampusHeritageTrail.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912114847/http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg:80/articles/SIP_118_2005-01-22.html to http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_118_2005-01-22.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011012701/http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf/34VolNo6200506/V34N6p196C.pdf to http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf/34VolNo6200506/V34N6p196C.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807224007/http://www.lib.nus.edu.sg:80/linus/95jul/mdlibhis.html to http://www.lib.nus.edu.sg/linus/95jul/mdlibhis.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sgh.com.sg/ForDoctorsnHealthcareProfessionals/EducationandTraining/UndergraduateMedicalEducation/History/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://livelife.ecitizen.gov.sg/culture/heritage/buildings_detail.asp?plc_id=24

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) 09:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]