Talk:Singapore/GA3

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Pass

• Article appears stable. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Article appears to appropriately use sources - there is no obvious evidence of original research. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears to be factual and neutral. Any unusual claims, such as "The Singaporean military is arguably the most technologically advanced in Southeast Asia" are backed up by reliable sources - though some, such as this one, using a source from 2010, may need updating. SilkTork (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Images are all appropriately tagged and usable. SilkTork (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query

• There is an appropriate reference section, but there are a number of Harv errors indicated. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a lot of images creating image clutter, and sometimes squeezing text between images - see MOS:IMAGES for guidelines omn use and placement of images. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SilkTork what's your browser's max width? I want to emulate to see how the clutter looks like to you. robertsky (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky My browser size is 1280 x 657. This MOS:SANDWICHING happens in a number of places, such as Merger with Malaysia, Foreign relations, Military, and Culture. SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork thanks. will check on this again. It will definitely be different from my current 1920 x 1080. robertsky (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of images have long captions, the content of which would be better used in the main body. See WP:CAPTION. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Prose works, but tends to journalese, informality, and could be more concise. There tends, such as the opening sentences, to be an accumulation of detail crudely presented which is not inviting to read, and is therefore counter-productive in conveying the information. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• On a quick look, the major aspects appear to be covered, though more research would need to be done. SilkTork (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have in mind any specific area which requires reasearch? 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1.02 editor - the research I mean is me doing some background reading on the topic. This is what I do for all GA reviews. It's my standard approach. If you wish to help out on that, that would be useful. I'll look at other encyclopedia entries on SIngapore. Put "Singapore" in to Google and see what comes up, including news items. And sometimes get a book or two out of the library. The amount of research depends on the complexity and importance of the topic. SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• While there is no section that appears obviously excesses, some sections appear to be disproportionately larger than others - such as Water supply and sanitation containing more information than Tourism. SilkTork (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• References to Singapore Statutes need to be checked as the URL structure for AGO's Singapore Statutes Online was changed sometime 2-3 years ago. If possible, make use of {{Singapore legislation}} to ensure that the links stay updated. robertsky (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky Would you be able to do that? SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork yup. working on that, but putting here so that if anyone else wants to edit, they can do it too. robertsky (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Any updates? Feinoa (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this, but the Proposed Decisions have been posted in the Fram ArbCom case, just when my personal life is also somewhat unexpectedly busy, so I'm putting that as the priority at the moment. But I will get back to this as soon as possible. SilkTork (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Feinoa (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting stability under a query as the article had to be fully protected, and was only unprotected a few days ago. SilkTork (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Cite needed tags have been dealt with, though I had to add a new one. I'll check out sources as I read through the article. SilkTork (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Density and presentation of image media is still a problem. Because of the size of the sections, unless there is a compelling reason for more, I suggest selecting just one image; and, to give a tidy appearance, to place that image on the right side of the article - at the top of the section if possible, otherwise close to the text to which the image refers, unless that means the image is so close to the bottom of the section that it spills over into the next section. I have collapsed the weather box as that is media rich and distracting, yet not everyone requ that information. Collapsing the box is not a GA requirement, so it can be reversed if this is considered inappropriate. SilkTork (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork I have noticed that some articles sidestep the text-squeeze and section-overflow issue by using galleries and montages, like India. And we do have a gallery here to highlighreligious diversity - in some areas and roads on the island, we have all three in close proximity. Shiok (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries can be contentious, and while not explicitly forbidden, are not quite encouragp either: WP:GALLERY. WP:Layout, which is part of the GA criteria, does have MOS:LAYIM which says "you can use a gallery", so that would be a way forward for those sections which would benefit from having several images, but where there is insufficient space. Other than the religious section, where I feel the present gallery works effectively, which sections do you feel would benefit from a gallery? SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly discourage the use of any gallery in an overview article as it brings unbalance to section and breaks format as per WP:GALLERY and WP:UNDUE. What in meant by format change....is that in mobile view the images would not be seen till section end....that would be different from all other sections...in desk to view it may cause the whole article to need the use of sidescroll for some people MOS:ACCIM. The norm in country articles is not to have stand-alone galleries.... instead images associated with the text are placed adjacent to the text as per Mos recommendations. Examples to follow are Canada, Australia and Chad. Japan has a few buildings as per a long talk based on the fact a chart would have been meaningless. As for the format at India it is a current change that is being debated with the main concern being mini size images that are not accessible and do not meet the threshold size for visibility for all. Would be hard pressed to fine a gallery in watched over country articles. As for the gallery section here....in my view....religion is not represented well by architecture.--Moxy 🍁 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religion is the main section I am concern about for a gallery and not thought of others. I am glad you think the present gallery works effectively. The most relevant part of WP:Gallery to me is this: "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images..". Social harmony is important in Singapore, so these images together in a small gallery will reinforce that message. Some readers may not even know how a Buddhist temple and Islamic mosque looks like and these will help. The section text is short and I do not see much difference when it appears at the end of the section on mobiles.

Concerning India's feature article I mentioned, it is due to appear just next week (Oct 2). There is no current debate about its montage image format on their talk page at all. SilkTork, are you more or less finished with the body text? Shiok (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not yet had a chance to sit down with the revised article, read it thoroughly and compare it with specific and general sources. I hope to do that over the next few days now my schedule is a bit freer on Wikipedia, though I am still a little stretched in real life. Like you I was a little surprised that India is to appear as a featured article considering its poor state - the appearance alerts one to the possibility the article is similarly messy, and it is. The lead fails to appropriately summarise the contents of the article, spending most of its time on history, trying to cram everything else about India in a small paragraph. There is nothing in the lead about agriculture, indeed, very little in the article itself, despite agriculture employing half of India's workforce - there is more about agriculture in an image caption that there in the main body of the article. There is nothing about incense. There is nothing about tourism. There are mistakes early on - the lead sentence of the second paragraph says: "Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago" - though humans had likely been arriving in India from 70,000 years ago or more. The "no later than" phrase is unclear, usually indicating a point in the future rather than one in the past, and "from Africa" is also unclear, and not needed anyway for a sentence in the lead. The overlarge, coloured, and over-captioned images are squeezing text and pushing into following sections. There are too many tertiary sources. There are a number of broken or unused cites. I've only glanced at it, and I don't see it as being of GA standard in its current state, let alone FA. However, that is not my concern. I do not have the time to get involved in that. I wish instead to focus on this GA, and help you folks bring this article to an acceptable standard. The appearance is a quick and easy aspect of that. A tidy, uncluttered and professional appearance is important in both encouraging people to read and reassuring them that the textual content will be similarly well organised and tidy. SilkTork (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds insightful, hopefully they can make some corrections. I had drafted the following response earlier for comments above, but will post it here since you are the reviewer.

I do not see the 20 buildings mentioned, unless we count those with even a hint of one structure in the background. Cities are mainly built-up areas and Singapore island especially is almost all urban with the exception of the surrounding islands, so some images with them are difficult to avoid. The stand-alone buildings are:

* a 3-photo montage of the city skyline - Economy

* Istana - Government

* SAFTI Military Institute - Defense

* Ministry of Communications, in charge of IT, media, arts - Infrastructure

* SMU University - Education

* NUH Hospital - Healthcare

* National Gallery - Arts

* Jewel Changi - Tourism

Of these, the 3-photo skyline montage was already reduced from a 7-photo montage someone posted, if need be could be reduced to just one. A few can possibly be replaced, like NUH hospital, Ministry of Communications, university, but may be hard-pressed to find another representation for those sections.

The religious gallery are buildings course, but many will see them as places of worship and religion, not regular office buildings. I am certainly not ignoring MOS, but it does provide for exceptions and hopefully acceptable here. There is always a chance the recent events may recur, maybe just to hinder the review, so I hope you will not be deterred. Shiok (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your free to ignorer the MOS and other recommendations but most will see an unbalanced ...to our readers the most important aspect of the article will be buildings. Not people or culture but buildings as there are 20 of them in the article...sure we need 3 more in a gallery? .."Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article". I dont see how segregation of buildings represents "Social harmony" in fact it shows the opposite. --Moxy 🍁 11:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tourism section - (copied from talk) it would be good to fix the tourism section first. It reads like an assortment of random facts and describes some specific tourist attractions, instead of tourism in general. Some of the information that could be expected from a tourism section are (1) contribution of tourism to employment/economy, (2) major steps taken to promote tourism (Ministry of Tourism and Merlion) (3) reasons why tourists visit (central location, good air connectivity, duty free shopping) (4) major tourist profile (China, India, ASEAN) and (5) briefly list important tourist attractions.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

• Has a number of citation needed tags, including from November 2016. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tags have been dealt with. I'll continue working on the review. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears on first glance to be a quick fail due to there being a number of citation needed tags, some dating from November 2016; also the presentation is very untidy with too much media. However, the article is reasonably readable, and appears to be organised and detailed, so there is the possibility that this could be turned into a Good Article with a decent and committed scrub up. I'll continue to make some quick observations. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Currently, the article isn't stable due to edit warring, so quick fail for now. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 12:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Every day, two new restaurants open in Singapore." This is sloppy journalistic writing. The data on which this tidbit comes from is seven years old, and is based on an annual figure so giving just the media headline is inaccurate and misleading. Do two restaurants open every day? No, of course not. The source says 686 restaurants opened in 2012, so two a day is just an average. However, the source also says 537 closed, so the total number of new restaurants is 149. That in itself is an impressive figure so it doesn't need to be artificially pumped up. However, as the data is seven years old, it would be more appropriate to get a recent number, and one which looked at an overall trend, not just a single year. SilkTork (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given the article an in-depth review, but I think there is potential here for this article to be made into a Good Article. However, before an in-depth review can be conducted, the obvious problems of the "citation needed" tags, and the image clutter need to be addressed. So I am putting this on hold for seven days for those matters to be dealt with before continuing the review. If the citation and image issues are addressed within seven days I will complete the review to see what else needs doing. SilkTork (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps best to fail and start again once the problems below are delt with. We clearly have some problems that can't be solved without intervention despite what the majority is saying.--Moxy 🍁 20:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay - the Fram case took up a lot of my time and energy. Now it is over I'll take a look again at this article. I recall when I first looked that it appeared to be a quick fail, but that beneath the off-putting appearance there appeared to be a reasonably solid article that could be worked into shape. I am aware that in the month since I put this on hold that the article has had as many edits as it has had in the previous 12 months, and that some edit warring took place. Such instability is also grounds for quick fail, but if we can look into the reason for that, and deal with it then hopefully it won't occur again. SilkTork (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am extending the hold for one month, after which I will look again and make a decision as to if the review can continue, or if there is too much instability. I will look again on or around Nov 5th. Please use the time to build the whole article rather than worrying about the lead. If the main body of the article is fine, the lead will; fall into place. The lead is always the last thing I look at as that is the area that is most likely to change during a review. SilkTork (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I totally agree that it is important to fix the sections first. I was initially an observer, but I would be happy to actively contribute to this; though I am not sure if the timeline is adequate. Is there a fixed deadline for a GA review?--DreamLinker (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the reviewer. I am particularly patient, and am comfortable keeping a review open for months if need be. As long as progress is being made, and folks are still happy for the review to remain open I have no problems at all. This hold is because there is disagreement about the lead. You can work on the article, and safely ignore the lead. As with a number of other experienced GA reviewers, I leave serious consideration of the lead to the end, as the lead will likely change as the article itself develops during a review. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust you one bit. And you have avoided visiting the talk page and answering questions I posed to you for days, right at the page bottom.

"Third on Corruptions Perception Index" - these are your own rewrites, a claimed "consensus view" that is only by yourself. I do not see anyone coming in to support your vague deceptive summary. You know of course many readers who are new to the index may interpret it as the third most corrupt country. So your perverted refusal to acknowledge this vagueness in your next response will be reflective of other malicious content edits too. "

I suggest everyone watch all his edits carefully, not only on Singapore article.183.90.37.104 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@183.90.37.104: Please note that Silktork is currently reviewing the article for GA status and in many cases reviewers will be bold and make some changes where they deem necessary. Please also assume good faith in other editors unless they have been proven to be disruptive editors. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions regarding general editing of the article and debate between editors is best done on the talkpage rather than here in the review. The statement " you have avoided visiting the talk page and answering questions I posed to you for days, right at the page bottom" is inaccurate as DreamLinker responded to every comment made by 183.90.37.104 apart from the last one. The tone of 183.90.37.104's language is hostile and insulting, and is not conducive to a positive collaborative atmosphere. SilkTork (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Copying this here as I want this to be a part of the GA review record:

I don't wish to get involved too much in the editorial decisions in building this article. Reviewers should remain neutral. What I will be looking for in the lead is an overview of Singapore, summarising the main points raised in the article, as per WP:Lead. There shouldn't be a statement in the lead that is not also in the main body (such as " classified as an Alpha+ global city"). There shouldn't be a section in the article that is not summarised in the lead. Working on the lead separately from the main body is not often the best way of doing things. Write the article. Make sure the article is fine, then use the main body of the article to create your lead.

What I will also be looking at is that there is broad coverage in the article - so there should be information on education and healthcare. Perceptions such as quality of life, and personal safety are additional pieces of information not always found in a GA article on settlements, and while they can and should be included if such perceptions are shown to be widely reported such that they are a common feature on discussions about the settlement, they are not required pieces of information. It is known as a major trading centre, so I would expect some mention of that in the main body, along with an explanation of why it is such a world leader, with a summary both of the fact and the reason in the lead. I would expect an indication in the article and so therefore in the lead of the government's control and influence on Singapore's financial development. I will also be looking that the article stays focussed, so a lot of detail or weight on a particular aspect I will question. I would, for example, question a paragraph that sets out to insist on Singapore's "influence" with a string of features, particularly when this assertion of influence is both uncited and not discussed (and it appears not even mentioned) in the main body. I will be looking out for examples of original research where statements are made which are not directly found in sources, but which are arrived at by editors' own interpretation of facts. The facts may be true. But if they are not explicitly stated in sources, then we should not be saying them. Do we have a source for Singapore's "influence on the global economy"? I will be looking at balance to ensure the article is neutral. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't expect to see a series of positive statements, but alert and inquiring readers may get concerned to read long sections of high praise without accompanying balance, such as concerns about falling GDP. Am I missing in the article information about the fall in GDP in Singapore: [1], [2], [3]? Is this information in the article and I'm not seeing it?

My suggestion to folks working to improve the article is to concentrate on getting the main body right first, then work on the lead. It's easier and more effective that way, and tends to be less confrontational as well! SilkTork (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am closing this GAN as not listed. The article remains unstable, and so the review cannot continue. SilkTork (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]