Talk:Marine Parade Community Building/GA1

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

Reviewer: Elekhh (talk · contribs) 03:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Starting review. Will post a list of issues soon. -- ELEKHHT 03:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The article is well focused, comprehensive and has the potential to become GA but has several issues which will require fixing, as detailed below.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Prose is often fragmented with several sections being a sequence of short paragraphs. The overlinking of plain English words is distracting.✅ I also find some citation overkill to be distracting, for instance the last short paragraph of the history section has eight references.✅ There is some repetition as well, for example the "Starbucks café on the ground floor" is mentioned three times.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The lead does not yet adequately summarize the article. A second paragraph summarizing the architecture section would be appropriate.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * There are several dead links
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Coverage is broad enough for GA, but further info regarding overall size, the location of entries, and its architectural significance would be useful.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * The lead image also needs a caption
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Placing the review on hold for a couple of days to allow time for addressing the above issues. Additional comments by reviewers welcome. -- ELEKHHT 01:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * The lead image also needs a caption
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Placing the review on hold for a couple of days to allow time for addressing the above issues. Additional comments by reviewers welcome. -- ELEKHHT 01:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Placing the review on hold for a couple of days to allow time for addressing the above issues. Additional comments by reviewers welcome. -- ELEKHHT 01:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Elekhh! I have reduced the overlinking. Of the three dead links, only one was used as a reference, so I removed the two that were not. Must images in infoboxes have captions? The other issues will be addressed over the weekend. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The citation overkill has been dealt with. Copyediting the article (especially the lead section) may take up to a week. In the meantime, I hope others can help us determine whether a caption for the infobox image should be mandated per the GA criteria. The writer of this article is the retired SGpedian legend Sengkang, not me (this is one of six articles I am polishing for a GA drive). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing is mandated, and I hoped that my answer at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations would have clarified this. If you don't wish to have a caption for this article why not simply put an argument forward? In the meanwhile I added a caption which clarifies which part of the building is depicted, but you are invited to remove if you don't consider useful. Thanks for the improvements so far, I trust this article can become GA with a bit more effort. If you need a couple of days more that should be ok, but would appreciate if we would try to give a good example here and keep close to the guideline which recommends one week for this process. -- ELEKHHT 19:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have copyedited the prose, merging short paragraphs together. Feel free to check the prose. The remaining concern is the lead section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work so far, waiting for the lead improvements. -- ELEKHHT 06:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also just noticed looking at google street view that there is a Cristofori Music School located on the ground level, below the library, facing Still RD South, where the Starbucks was. Would be good to find a good reference for that and update the article. -- ELEKHHT 06:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead section done. Could not find reliable references for the Cristofori Music School, which appears to be a new development (this article was written in 2007). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements J.L.W.S. The Special One. I can pass now this article as GA, while noting that further improvements are welcome. In particular in terms of coverage it could be expanded with information about architectural significance, overall size, the location of entries and new functions such as the Cristofori Music School, once appropriate sources are found. -- ELEKHHT 22:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)