Talk:Languages of Singapore/GA2

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

Reviewer: White whirlwind (talk · contribs) 19:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to list some issues here that I feel prevent this article from being made a GA.


 * The lead really needs a nice image, I would recommend one of some signage in Singapore showing its linguistic diversity.


 * This article suffers from the unfortunate and common illness of its lead not being a particularly good summary of the article's contents. It's more of a mini History section at this point.  I also suggest opening with a lead that allows incorporation of the article's title in bold letters, as is customary on Wikipedia: "The main languages of Singapore are, as defined by its Constitution, English, Malay, [etc. etc.]".


 * I find it odd that the "Dialect Preservation Issues" subsection and its following section, the poorly titled "'Stupid' to ...." and "Renewed Interest" section, are in the "Media" section and not the "Social and Political Issues".


 * I would also like to see the addition of some more inline citations and a few good images, if possible, before this is passed.  White Whirlwind  咨   19:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Kindly note that Singapore is currently busy with preparations for Hari Raya Puasa. Do you think the image of the sign in the "Bilingualism and multilingualism" section would be better placed in the lead section? Please tag statements that need inline citations. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: No edits have been made to this article in over two weeks. Is it safe to say it's been abandoned? Tezero (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I moved a few sections as the reviewer requested, then asked a question about an image and requested the reviewer tag specific statements that need inline citations. Waiting for a response from the reviewer. --Hildanknight (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All of my suggestions need to be implemented before we proceed to a reevaluation (the lead, for example). Regarding inline citations, I think there should be a minimum of one citation per paragraph.    White Whirlwind  咨   22:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not asking you to evaluate the article again. I was asking you for clarifications. To improve the article, I need feedback that is more specific. For example, if the lead "really needs a nice image", then do you think the image of the quadrilingual warning sign would be better place there? Your requests for "a few good images" and "one inline citation per paragraph" far exceed the GA criteria, so if you insist on them, I insist on seeking another opinion (or even another reviewer). --Hildanknight (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the warning sign is not a good lead image, it's unevenly shot and not sufficiently aesthetically pleasing. The GA criteria state that GA articles must be "Illustrated by images", and this article only has three even though it is quite long.  There's no reason more couldn't be easily found for this article.


 * Please implement the feedback in my second bullet point, the lead is a very important part of a WP article.


 * The GA criteria state that inline citations are needed "for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" (bold added by me). The first half of the article is much better cited than the second half.  For example, I can easily find a number of "statistical", "published opinion", or "counter-intuitive" statements that are currently unsourced, for example:
 * "The majority of Singaporeans are bilingual in English and one of the other three official languages."
 * "However, Malay in turn is facing competition from English."
 * "The declining standards and command of Chinese language amongst younger generations of Chinese Singaporeans continue to be of concern to the older generations of Chinese Singaporeans, as they perceive it to be an erosion of Chinese culture and heritage."
 * The amount of the above-mentioned unsourced material in the "Sociolinguistic issues" section is particularly egregious. Please note that, per the GA criteria, a GA nominee may be immediately failed if "It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid."  This section has one, and thus no matter how many reviewers User:Hildanknight seeks out or remonstrates with, this article cannot possibly be passed until more work is done.  Here are just a few of the many problematic areas in this section:
 * "Some Singaporeans had argued that linguistically, Singapore was even more multilingual in the 1950s compared to today. Dialect preservationists had criticized Singapore's bilingual policy for causing the language decline of Chinese dialects in Singapore. Some Singaporeans had criticized that the bilingual education of Singapore was not successful in making sure the Singaporeans are good in both English and the mother tongue."
 * "Chinese culture and dialect preservationists in Singapore worry that the declining use of dialects might lead to the eventual death of dialects in Singapore."
 * "However, the vast majority of older Chinese Singaporeans can only speak in the other Chinese languages and have little or no proficiency in Mandarin. Because of this a language barrier is formed between them and their grandparents. Chinese culture and dialect preservationists in Singapore worry that the declining use of dialects might lead to the eventual death of dialects in Singapore."


 * For the reasons listed above, I am failing [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|20px]] this article's attempt at GA status. I encourage the nominator, Hildanknight, to spend some time improving the article according to my and other editors' suggestions, and then to renominate the article at some point in the future.   White Whirlwind  咨   21:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)