Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Denise Phua/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denise Phua

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about a Singaporean politician who focuses on the disabled and special needs communities. Since I am doing a project about her in junior college, I decided to write an article about her. I would like the article checked for prose, MOS (or MOnSter), NPOV and BLP issues before I nominate it for GAN in early November. (Do point out other issues that may prevent the article from attaining GA status.)

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Notes by Jaakobou:

Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC) + 11:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC) + 11:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by Chenzw:

Chenzw  Talk  11:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Notes by roux

Hope that helps. - [ roux ] [x] 11:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading your responses, I think you have addressed the major concerns well, and I have no problems with how you have addressed anything. Good luck on the GAR! [ roux ] [x] 04:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes by delldot ∇.

Very well-referenced, informative article! Just some suggestions, up to you whether you implement them:

  • She subsequently founded WeCAN, a voluntary organisation which helps caregivers of autistics and trains special education teachers.[2][3][8] WeCAN also offers an early intervention programme for preschoolers.
    • Is "caregivers of autistics" really the way you would refer to them, or would it be "autistic people"? I know there's a guideline somewhere that says use the word as an adjective rather than a noun (e.g. "epileptic people" or "people with epilepsy", not "epileptics").
    The autistic community prefer to be referred as "autistics". "Autistic people" is considered fine, while "person with autism" may be highly offensive. Do point me to the guideline and I will edit the article accordingly. (I hope the MOnSter does not encourage the use of terms which promote discrimination.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Changed to "autistic people" after finding the guideline. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • presumably referring to just autistic preschoolers, right? This second sentence is a bit of a tangent, talking about what the organization she founded currently does. It doesn't explain how the organization started out, what it started out by doing. Alternately you could join the two sentences to make the description of the organization more parenthetical.
    As with many Singaporean topics, referenced information on the organisation is scarce, but I will continue researching. Yes, the early intervention programmes are only for autistic preschoolers. I included that information in a seperate sentence because two-sentence paragraphs are bad. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend "intervention programme for preschoolers" → "intervention programme for autistic preschoolers" for clarity. delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added "autistic" in front of "preschoolers" for clarification. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • she is now their supervisor - change to she is their supervisor as of [year] per WP:DATED.
    I presume that when her position changes, the website will be changed to reflect that. The point of that clause is to show that she is still actively involved in Pathlight (she did not co-found the school and abandon them subsequently). If you insist, I can change the sentence, but the new sentence must be clear and grammatically correct. How about "she later became their supervisor" or "as of 2008, she is their supervisor"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like "as of 2008, she is their supervisor". delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done despite my concern that this change may create prose flow problems. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2005, Phua decided to leave the corporate world to be a full-time special needs volunteer -- she decided to in 05? Or she did it in 05? I recommend a read-through to eliminate unnecessary or redundant wording, e.g. decided to leave → left.
    Done Changed "decided to leave" to "left". Good catch! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • She often wrote to newspapers and government agencies on issues affecting the special needs community. -- I'm not seeing the significance of this sentence. Did this have some effect that you could clarify?
    She wrote those letters in her capacity as president of ARC(S). Through the letters, she aimed to increase awareness of autism and change the PAP's mindset towards autistics. Since Singaporeans are generally conservative, her willingness to speak up was a reason why the PAP wanted her. (In the Singaporean movie I Not Stupid, there is a joke that it is difficult to catch fish in Singapore, because they are like Singaporeans and will never open their mouths.) I hope these do not need to be explicitly explained. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it some context, it's confusing otherwise. delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done The sources imply this but do not explicitly say so. Such clarifications may thus be considered original research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename header "As a volunteer" to "Volunteering" or "Volunteer work".
    Done Header name changed. Thanks for your suggestion. I did feel the header name should be changed, but could not find a beter name. "Voluntary career" sounds like an oxymoron! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain what "satellite classes" are.
    The article explains that satellite classes are "where Pathlight students mix with neurotypical peers". The term neurotypical (which means "non-autistic") is wikilinked. If you feel this explanation is inadequate, kindly explain why and feel free to suggest better explanations. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume the reader has less familiarity with the topic than you. Unfamiliar terms should be explained in the text so the reader does not have to go look them up or be lost or confused. It's your job to figure out how ;) delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about changing "neurotypical peers" to "mainstream students"? The term is not offensive and "where Pathlight students mix with mainstream students" seems like an explanation that is simple to understand. I could shorten it to something like "where Pathlight and mainstream students mix", but that might be confusing. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Jacklee also mentioned this, so I went ahead and made the change. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In four years, enrolment increased tenfold -- If there's a reference for what the dates and numbers actually are, more specific would be better.
    Will go through my references again, although I am not sure how necessary or useful this detail is. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the school attracted media attention for their impact on students. -- Awkward. Maybe "for its" but it still wouldn't be perfect.
    The article is written in British English, where, if I am not wrong, collective nouns (like schools) are plural. Perhaps a native speaker of British English could comment on this? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Changed per discussion on talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • fielded as a PAP candidate -- put the acronym in parentheses after the first use of the whole word.
    Already done The acronym is actually defined in the lead section. In fact, I doubt the full form needs to be used in the first sentence of the Political career section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The political career section is difficult for someone unfamiliar with Singaporean politics to understand. Maybe give a little background in parentheticals.
    Do tell me what you find confusing and I will see how I can explain it. I believe that articles I write should be accessible to both Singaporeans (who are usually not native speakers) and non-Singaporeans (who may be unfamiliar with the context). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is workgroup a word? Is masterplan?
    Done Changed "masterplan" to simply "plan", as I could not find a Wikipedia article or Wiktionary definition on the term. Wiktionary has a definition for workgroup, so I believe it is a word. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CPF is a dab page. Again, when you use an acronym, explain it on the first use.
    Done Changed CPF to the full name, Central Provident Fund. (Some Singaporeans joke that it means "Cash Prior to Funeral".) No need for brackets; it is only used once. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs photos. Maybe get permission for one of her, at least get one of the school or another topic discussed in the article.
    Not done Images are not a GA requirement. Images do exist; you could try uploading one and hoping the anti-fair use brigade do not notice it, but I would rather not. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does she speak/appear publically regularly? Conferences, public speaking, stuff like that? Is it possible to attend one of these and get a photo? Also, have you tried requesting a photo? Giggy (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laws were also drafted to prohibit abuse of the mentally disabled and to allow parents to appoint someone to look after their special needs children after they die. -- What role did Phua have in this, if any? Why is it in the article if she didn't?
    These were based on ideas from the workgroup and masterplan. Hence they are examples of ideas the government studied and implemented. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Merged the sentence with the one before that to clarify this. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phua criticised the PAP's "many helping hands" approach, saying that special education should be led by the Ministry of Education (MOE), as they had more resources and expertise-- what was the PAP's "many helping hands" approach?
    Under the approach, the needy receive help from many sectors of the community (called "helping hands") - the family, charitable organisations and the government. Should I create an article about the approach or is there a better way to explain it? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain in a parenthetical or a followup sentence. delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about something like "Phua criticised the PAP's "many helping hands policy", whereby... She felt that special education...."? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, or "many helping hands policy", which... Or you could explain it in another sentence. delldot ∇. 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done I added a basic explanation of the "many helping hands" approach, which I hope is sufficient, as there is much more to the approach than that. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "targets for learning outcomes"?
    Targets for learning outcomes are what schools want their students to learn/achieve before leaving school. For example, a certain number of O-Level passes or pre-vocational certification. Would you like to suggest a better wording? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain in a parenthetical or a followup sentence. delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added an example from the reference, to avoid original research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phua enjoys reading by the sea. -- I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value of this. I can see how with an obscure person it'd be tempting to include whatever info you can get but I think it's also important to keep the article focused and to exclude uninformative material.
    To be honest, I would rather remove the entire Personal life section, but I am not sure whether the article needs it to be "broad in its coverage" (GA criterion 3a). Do you think the article could do without the Personal life section? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think who her family is is relevant, as long as you have a source. But no, I don't think it needs it. delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done I removed the entire Personal life section, following a discussion on the talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tone could use a little tweaking. I think it would be worthwhile to do a read-through to find cases of corporate speak and unnecessarily glowing descriptions, e.g. "she gained experience in human resource management and product marketing, spending several years overseas developing their marketing communications strategy" (gained experience? Strategy? This terminology doesn't add meaning, and it reads like a resume. Plus you could say the same thing with fewer words).
    Duly noted. I will check for inappropriate tone. Sometimes I merely copy from the source to avoid OR and BLP issues. Feel free to point out other examples and/or suggest improvements. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For that example, do you think I should trim the details and simply say something like "She worked at Hewlett-Packard and the Wuthelam Group, then founded a regional leadership firm, the Centre of Effective Leadership."? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, 'worked at' and 'founded' are both fine and no frills. I didn't have a problem with the level of detail though, just the wording. I assume you mean that you paraphrase rather than copying directly (else you might have copyright/plagarism problems), right? delldot ∇. 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done With the details trimmed, the tone should be fine now. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall well done. delldot ∇. 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough and helpful review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by Jacklee

These are fairly minor points. Overall, the article is pretty well written. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Denise_Phua/archive1&oldid=1142590253"