Talk:Jardine Scholarship

Overall quite good. There are some minor sourcing issues that I have flagged in-line that should be addressed. The reason for the decline is that the text attributed to sources 9 and 18 are each closely paraphrased, and the selection criteria are copy-pasted (copyright problems in drafts are an automatic fail). Each of these needs to be re-worded so that syntax and word choice less-closely resemble the sources. Clean those two concerns up and it should be ready for mainspace.

Lastly, I removed wikilinks appearing in the body multiple times. WP:OVERLINK states that they should generally appear only once in an article's body. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , very appreciative, thank you! Will fix these issues and drop you a note once that’s done. :) Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've made the changes as advised. I have:
 * added citation 7 to show that bond-free scholarships by companies are unusual
 * added citation 25 to establish that internships offered are within the Jardine Group
 * removed the citation of the University of Oxford that appears to be original research
 * added citation 20 to show that the scholarship panel typically comprises 8 or more experts
 * added quotation marks to citation 10 (previously citation 9). As this is a line claiming to speak for their objectives, I thought it would be better not to speak for them. It is slightly clunky because of the square brackets, though, and if you have any suggestions on making it look smoother, that would be great.
 * rephrased citation 19 (previously 18)


 * I hope this makes it better! Re-submitted for your review. Many thanks!
 * Good improvements, just a couple of points remaining:
 * Citation 7 for the unusuality of bond scholarships isn't sufficient because, for the purposes of the claim it's making, it's actually an affiliated source: it is an article by OCBC bank about a scholarship OCBC is offering, and thus has a vested interest in making (potentially inaccurate) statements in favor of it;
 * The OR tag was not actually flagging the source, but rather the statement. You claim that recipients are reputed to perform well on exams and give three (now two) sources that each provide one example; but I didn't see that any of them actually made that claim. Thus this appears to be you making a claim in your own voice and supporting it with sources. Wikipedia doesn't do this kind of writing: we only cite other people who have done this.
 * Copyio problems resolved, I believe I can now publish this (and will momentarily). Hopefully, you will fix these other things here soon. Thanks for writing this! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate tag
I see nothing in this article that lends "undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies." The content here seems entirely objective. There's no reason for the undue weight tag. Flyte35 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flyte35. Rosguill, could you clarify/elaborate? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I can't say for certain, as it was quite some time ago and I was just starting out as a new page patroller. If I had to guess, it's because the article focuses more on the process of applying for the scholarship than on information about the scholarship's history and relevance and thus is somewhat unencyclopedic (per WP:NOTMANUAL and the like), but I agree that this wasn't really the right tag. signed,Rosguill talk 16:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * many thanks, if I get time and assuming I can find sources, I will make some edits. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)