Talk:Parliament of Singapore/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

This is a terrific article, and in my opinion it's well on the way to FA, but I'm placing it on hold because of a bunch of issues concerning conciseness and relevance. It shouldn't be too hard to correct, though.

The article badly needs someone to go through and ask the question "Is this really relevant?" concerning the facts listed in the article. The article goes into such overzealous detail about elements of the Westminster system that it drowns out a lot of genuinely important information - do we really need to know that an MP cannot be called as an assessor, every single reason why the Speaker must vacate their office, or a two-paragraph section concerning the functions of the Serjeant-at-Arms? The content is well-written, but it feels as if an attempt as been made to stuff anything conceivably related to the subject in here: remember that you're writing an encyclopedia article.
Following on from this, there's a bit of an issue with tone in a number of places. The "terminology" example is one example of this - it can be reasonably assumed from the lead and from the context that you're referring to the legislature as an institution - the caveat here seems more appropriate to a political science textbook.
- Comment: I felt it was necessary to distinguish between the use of the word Parliament to refer to the institution and to refer to the body of MPs returned at a particular election. The word is used in both senses in the article, so if this is not explained it might be confusing for readers. — JackLee, 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be an idea - and this one is just a suggestion - to really think about how much attention you want to pay to the intricate workings of the Westminster system in this article. The article mentions the Westminster system once in the entire article, which is a little bit strange when half the article could well have been written about the Australian parliament. It's also a little bit odd when there's no article on the role of Speaker in Singapore, but immense detail about the role in this article.I think you could almost cut the fat from this article into a separate article (say Parliamentary procedure in the Parliament of Singapore, but others too) and just about wind up with two GAs.
Finally, the article needs a touch more focus in places. The history of governance in Singapore generally is very relevant background - but it's not the subject of this article. In the history section, it doesn't even get to the creation of the first parliament until the third paragraph, and even that is under a sentence about the writing of a constitution. The lead section is another example of this: it launches into the history of Singapore's governance and intricate details of parliamentary procedure before mentioning things like where the parliament sits and how long MPs terms are. To this extent, the entire fifth paragraph doesn't really belong in the lead, and some of the other sections could well do with a check for conciseness.
- Comment: I was trying to explain what were the lawmaking institutions for Singapore from 1819 onwards, even before the first legislative council was established. — JackLee, 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, it's an excellent article, but it could really do with just a bit more of a reworking. Rebecca (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this long article. I'm afraid it was a bit of a monster that just kept growing. Will try and address your comments and/or respond to them above soon. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the lead needs some sources as per WP:LEAD -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leads don't need sources most of the time. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking up review[edit]

Following this message on my talk page, I am going to take over this review as it appears that the original reviewer has no time to complete it. It has been hanging fire for some time and I aim to wrap up outstanding issues within the standard seven days. I shall read the artcile over first and then post a review tomorrow, 22 March. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead at seven paragraphs is too long and too details. It should be a concise summary, three or four paragraphs as per WP:LEAD.

Qualifications section, consider changing to prose, lists are not useful and we don't need every jot and tick of the qualifications.

Likewise with other lists.
Comment: But isn't it rather misleading to mention some qualifications and to leave out others? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summarise, e.g.: Members of Parliament must be citizens of Singapore on the electoral roll, at least 21 years of age, able to read and write English, Malay, Mandarin or Tamil, and resident for ten years. Further qualifications are that they must not have been convicted of electoral offences, be undischarged bankrupts, of unsound mind, or have been sentenced to a jail term of one year or more or a fine of $2,000, or hold citizenship of a foreign country.

Prose otherwise fine.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Referencing appears fine
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The History section is too long. This article is about the Parliament, not a detailed history of the State. Some material about precursors of the Parliament is of course necessary, but there is too much at present.
Comment: OK, will see what I can do to shorten it. I was not trying to summarize the entire history of the nation, but to indicate what were the lawmaking bodies in its history. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather too much detail in the qualifications section and sub-sections. This level of detail is unnecessary and resembles a textbook on the constitution.

Likewise with Speaker of Parliament section.

Take a look at UK Parliament and US Congress and Bundestag, although not perfect they show a better way of present the information.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Query the encyclopaedic value of File:Statutes-Singapore-20050521.jpg. It is just a collection of ring binders.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for fourteen days (to allow for work on the High court artcile first). –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been addressed in the last 14 days so I am failing this nomination. Please read WP:SUMMARY and WP:GA? to get some idea of the requirements for Good Articles. If you can sort out these issues, please renominate at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment please take it to WP:GAR. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has two weeks already passed? Sorry, it's an incredibly busy period for me so I haven't been able to work on this. No problem; will look at the article some other time. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]