Talk:Government of Singapore/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * History: ...and the executive authority of the Parliament of Malaysia ceased to extend to Singapore and vested in the Singapore Government... unclear, poor grammar.
 * Fixed. — JackLee, 00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * The Lead is too long, WP:Lead section says no more than four paragraphs, consider editing the text down and reducing the length.
 * Fixed: OK, have shortened it and made it only four paragraphs long. — JackLee, 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * I fixed some dead links, I assume good faith for the print sources.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * All sources appear reliable
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * I have doubts about whether File:Singov top 02.png is necessary.
 * Fixed: The image was in the article before I started improving it, so I just retained it. I agree that it's not serving much purpose, so I've removed it. — JackLee, 00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Please address my comments on the lead and rework the example of bad prose, and justify the use of the logo. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've responded to your suggestions above. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, no outstanding issues - I am happy to paas this as a Good Article - Congratulations and thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks very much! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed: The image was in the article before I started improving it, so I just retained it. I agree that it's not serving much purpose, so I've removed it. — JackLee, 00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Please address my comments on the lead and rework the example of bad prose, and justify the use of the logo. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've responded to your suggestions above. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, no outstanding issues - I am happy to paas this as a Good Article - Congratulations and thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks very much! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)