Talk:Middle Road, Singapore/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Will have this to you within a day. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• The lead definitely needs to be expanded so it can summarise the whole article. At the moment, the lead doesn't mention key points such as the Jackson Plan or most of its history (try moving around content to create another paragraph)
• "within the Central Area of Singapore" - why is Central Area capitalised? Is it a district? Also link Singapore

Done Linked Central Area (yes, this is a district) and Singapore. --Hildanknight (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Why is the infobox in the Etymology section? It needs to be in the lead (at the very top of the article)

Done Combined the infobox with the image in the lead. --Hildanknight (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• The Etymology section is suffering from a lack of references. Things like "he Europeans subsequently vacated the area to dwell more inland, away from the urbanising city quarters" need to be sourced
• "Jackson's 1822 plan for the European Town" - should this be capitalised?
• I would merge the last two paragraphs in the Hainanese community and enclave section to increase readability

Done Merged the paragraphs. --Hildanknight (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The Japanese community was repatriated after the end of World War II," - the Second World War

I do not understand why but done anyway. --Hildanknight (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

References

• The only URL link is dead

Done The NLB Infopedia website had changed its URL structure. --Hildanknight (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• The Notes definitely need to be fleshed out. They need authors and full titles - things like Mikami (documentary) can seem unsettling to readers. I'm afraid that this doesn't meet the GA criteria at the moment.

Clarification needed I thought this is standard practice in GAs which have both a References/Biblography section and a Notes section? --Hildanknight (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes the Biblography is fine, I just thought that the references themselves could do with fleshing out, for example 'Tan - p.29' would seem confusing to new readers. It's understandable if you don't have the information as the Bibliography covers for this. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

On hold

In its current standing this article does not meet the GA criteria, however if all of those issues can be addressed then it should have a fighting chance. An expansion of the lead, a copyedit and fleshing out the references to include full names and titles should see this off. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days and once they have been addressed we'll take another look. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: If the article needs copyediting, perhaps you could help by pointing out specific grammar errors (I assume you are a native speaker of English)? --Hildanknight (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing them, the prose is definitely in better shape and regarding the references, the Bibliography covers the absence of information in the 'Notes' section. However, I failed to mention that the references are in fact well referenced; the citations are all in the correct places - so that now meets the GA criteria. Overall this is a good looking article, so I think this one can pass. Oh, and Hildanknight, I think 'World War II' and 'Second World War' both work fine, it's just that in most articles that are up to a GA standard the use of 'Second World War' sometimes improves how the article is read. I think that is just personally an old habit of mine though. Anyway, well done! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)