Wikipedia:Peer review/Chewing gum ban in Singapore/archive1

Chewing gum ban in Singapore

I think the article is good enough to be on FAC without too much major changes, but just like to ssek a bit of ideas on improving this article in addition to some feedback of biasness in the article. Some copyediting will be good, too. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the use of the two fair use images is not appropriate. Image:Wrigley doublemint.jpg and Image:Wrigley orbit.jpg would be fair use in an article talking about those products. You'll have a tenuous fair use claim in the Singapore article. Also, there is no reason that a free photo of chewing gum products could not be made as a replacement. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last para of lead section is POV: "Since the ban, Singapore's sidewalks have continued to stay gum-free. A new generation has grown up devoid of chewing gum, with few significant repercussions. Tourists visiting Singapore enthuse about how they no longer need to pick gum off their shoes when walking on the streets. Today, it is generally agreed amongst citizens that the advantages of the ban far outweigh the side-effects." And in general language is very strong and biased (like "One of the champions of the project"). How about citing some numbers? (eg how many cases of vandalism in MRT trains before the ban or how much revenues were lost by small shopkeepers). Also, could you produce chewing gum in Singapore? Renata3 20:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to point that out. That sentence seems POV and unsourced. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"After all, this is an example of governmental control, in the name of good public policy, to restrict the distribution and sales of a commodity and the private lifestyle habits of its ordinary citizens." This doesn't really make sense, it needs to be cleaned up. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs more hard numbers and different background information. How many times did chewing gum stop the subway door sensors? How long were the delays and what was the related economic cost? Public housing is far more prevalent in Singapore than in most countries. How much have the taxpayers saved in maintenance costs to public housing and sidewalks?

There's a lack of focus. Chewing gum seems to be a springboard for other discussions of quirky Singapore laws. Try to corral the side issues into a section of their own. I'd appreciate reading this in the context of social norms. That is, Singapore strikes its own balance between personal freedoms and public good.

I agree the Wrigley's images are difficult to claim under fair use. It would be better to show a wad of gum on the sidewalk. Durova 22:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]