Wikipedia:Peer review/Singapore/archive4
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it hasn't been through one for years. It was once a GA, and I feel it is close to fulfilling the GA requirements again. Any comments are very welcome, but don't worry too much about grammar etc. unless it makes it unreadable, as I intend to ask someone from the Guild of Copyeditors to look it over once this Peer Review is done.
Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is nicely done, generally, very informative, certainly broad in coverage, and not far from being ready for another run at GA. I took you at your word and did not dwell on minor copyediting issues; the prose reads smoothly in most places, and a copyeditor should not have a hard time tweaking things here and there. A couple of things to watch out for would be sentences that start with digits instead of words and for no-break codes per WP:NBSP for constructions like $15 billion or 19th century. Here are a few suggestions about sourcing, citations, and possible expansion.
- Except for the lead, each paragraph needs at least one citation to a reliable source. The fifth paragraph of the "History" section, for example, needs support by a reliable source. My rule of thumb is to provide citations for every direct quotation, every unusual claim, and every set of statistics, in addition to each paragraph. When an in-line citation appears in the middle of a paragraph, it does not cover the remaining claims in the paragraph, which may need additional sourcing. (See the first paragraph of the "History" section for an example of this sort of incomplete sourcing.) Generally, though, the article's claims seem well-supported.
- The "History" section is good. Would it be useful to add a bit more about what happened between 1965 and 1990?
- The Geography section is quite interesting and well-done. The map is very helpful. I would suggest adding something about geology, including something about tsunamis and earthquakes, if Singapore is threatened by either.
- Although I'm not commenting on grammar or low-level prose issues, this sequence in the "Economy" section stopped me: "Rated as the most business-friendly economy in the world,[53][54] Hundreds of thousands of foreign expatriates work in Singapore in multi-national corporations." Probably part of the first sentence got accidentally lopped off.
- I noted the absence of any mention of labor relations, employment conditions, and unemployment statistics in the "Economy" section. Also missing are any mention of class distinctions or gender distinctions. Does Singapore have any "slums"? Does it have any groups that are systemically disadvantaged economically for any reason? Can women advance in the work force in the same ways that men can advance? Do people typically have retirement pensions, private or public?
- Would it be helpful to add something about health and medicine in Singapore?
- Should the "Art" section include anything about music and literature? Does Singapore have a national symphony? Have any famous writers come from Singapore?
- Directional images generally look better if they aim into the page. I see two that I would consider moving to the right side of the page: the one of the imperial Japanese army, and the one of the fighter jet. I would move the MRT train to the left side of the page.
- Quite a few of the citations are incomplete. (See citations 105 and 139, for example.) Generally, citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and access date, if all of those are known or can be found.
- The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find one dab, one dead URL, and one soft 404 URL that may be dead.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)