Talk:Fort Tanjong Katong/GA1

GA on hold

 * Lead. I would reword the first sentence I think.. "Fort Tanjong Katong was one of the oldest military forts built by the former British colonial government of Singapore, standing from 1879 to 1901." Since it no longer exists, "is" probably isn’t correct, and what it was is probably more important that the date.
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "the only one of its kind on the eastern side of the island,[2] Fort Tanjong Katong was part of a series of defensive batteries and fortifications along the southern coast of Singapore; it defended the eastern approaches to the Singapore Harbour and Singapore Town against seaborne attacks." Proposed rewording for second sentence
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "The fort found with traces of a moat and near intact perimeter wall, was considered by local archaeological experts as one of Singapore's most important archaeological finds of a "true 19-century fort" to date." -> Found with traces of a moat and near intact perimeter wall, the fort was considered by local archaeological experts as one of Singapore's most important archaeological finds of a "true 19-century fort" to date.
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussing the other forts being converted into gold courses seems to divert attention from the main topic. I suggest it be culled.
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "The fort reflected the British concerns over possible threats posed by other European powers such as Holland and Russia,[2] that might attack the strategically located colony founded by Sir Stamford Raffles of the British East India Company in 1819" - > "The fort reflected the British concerns that other European powers such as Holland and Russia might attack the strategically located colony founded by Sir Stamford Raffles of the British East India Company in 1819"
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we know what the land was used for before it was built?
 * Yes, it was a coconut plantation as mentiond earlier in para 2 under "History" section.


 * "A local team of contractors completed building the fort in less than 12 months" - > "A local team of contractors constructed the fort in less than 12 months"
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "it was also hard" -> hard is redundant
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we get some info on the actual structre of the fort? At the moment I see some info about the guns, but I don’t see much about the design of the walls and towers (if there was a tower). At the moment I am reading an academic journal article about fortifications of the Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam and they were discussing the different shapes and tower structures so it seems to be an importna tactical detail.
 * My earlier research based online & in the archives was unable to extract much info on this issue except for its basic features, the guns & the gunners themselves. According to the chief archaelogist's report mentioned in the article: "Much of Fort Tanjong Katong’s past is unknown, and a few scarce references are found in secondary texts." (See full report here) The only tangible reference of the Fort to date, was a proposed plan which displayed only the fort outline & foundation. No mentioned or specific details found to date wrt any construction of tower(s) or other fortification structures. Even if it exists, it's either demolished or traces of it are still buried under the park. As mentioned in the article, it's hope that future archaelogists would be able to find out more of its secrets once its status is settled. For further updates & background story, u may want to find out more from one of the references I used earlier at their site here. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Barely five years after upgrading work was completed in 1888" -> "Barely five years after upgrades were were completed in 1888"
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Source please for last part of "Wash out fort"
 * ??? Already mentioned as an 'EndNote' as per Ref 6.


 * Source please for first para of "Rediscovery"
 * The Jack Sim part? Already mentioned. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It’s better and less weaselly to tell us what Mr Goh’s ministry is.
 * Fyi, Mr Goh Chok Tong is a former Prime Minister of Singapore and the incumbent MP of the Marine Parade constituency. He does not belong to any ministry but acts in his capacity as a consultant to the Singapore Govt now. I've wiki-linked his title to "Senior Minister" which is self explantory. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "The archaeology group is lobbying for the site to be gazetted as a National Monument, which the group hope that the authorities would accept their proposal to incorporate the fort remains to be featured as part of the park in future." This sentence needs to be reworded
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "The" needs to be put in front of "Urban Redevelopment Authority"
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The quotes aren’t long enough to be broken out and the quotes themselves haven’t become "classic quotes" so they shouldn’t be broken out for emphasis in my opinion. Secondly the quote by Mr Lim IMHO is not encyclopedic. On the TV news they sometimes include comments by people on the street, to get the people’s opinions but it putting these things down in writing in textbooks etc, is not appropriate.
 * ✅. I've removed both quotes for flow & consistency. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "The funds left over" - > "The remaining funds,"
 * ✅. -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "2m" this needs a space. Use nbsp;
 * ✅. I've replaced with "metres" instead -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "laboured tirelessly through the mud, rain and sun" is not encyclopedic
 * ✅. Removed as per NPOV -- Aldwinteo 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is good but I think an effort should be made to find more information about the structural details of the fort. The RS/COPYVIO/NPOV/MOS is fine except fro the small things I pointed out. I would have just made the prose changes myself but since I am writing this offline I am letting you do it. Thanks,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done. It's a pity we don't know so much about the structure of the fort, but if more is found out, it would be good to know about it. apologies for my comments about the unsourced refs, I saved the articel to my hard drive when the ref wasn't there. WEll done.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * G'day mate, thank you for your speedy reply and support on this GA review & my past DKY nominations -- Aldwinteo 05:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)