Talk:Nominated Member of Parliament/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 17:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: no dabs found.

Linkrot: 3 dead links found and tagged, noting available at the Internet Archive. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead needs to be a maximum of four paragraphs and should thoroughly summarize the article, see. WP:LEAD.
 * Comment: This is "a general guideline—not an absolute rule". — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently, the paragraphs are rather short and could easily be combined. I  see no reason to ignore this guideline. There are also unattributed statements in the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The tone is somewhat academic rather than encyclopaedic, please consider revising to read more like an encyclopaedia article.
 * Comment: You'll need to be more specific. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest you look at other Politics and Government GAs and FAs to see the the style of writing that you should be aiming for. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I would like to see page numbers for citations to books.
 * . — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those few citations which I was able to check supported the cited statements.
 * The statement "The Committee may nominate persons who have rendered distinguished public service or who have brought honour to Singapore, and also invites proposals of candidates from community groups in the fields of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service, and the labour movement." appears to be a close paraphrase of official documents as found at and  Needs to be a quote if it is such and needs proper attribution and referencing.
 * Comment: The statement is evidenced by footnotes 25 and 26 in the "Appointment, term of office, and powers" section, which I've rephrased slightly. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a quote and should be inline attributed and placed in quote marks. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise "The NMP scheme has been criticized on the grounds that it is undemocratic, and that unelected NMPs have no incentive to express the electorate's views in Parliament." needs attribution. I note that this appears in the lead but not in the main body of the artcile.
 * Comment: the statements are evidenced by the text accompanying footnotes 33–40, which I've rephrased. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See earlier comments on attribution, this is still lacking in many places. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources appear to be RS, assume good faith for off-line sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Broad and focussed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The whole article is riddled with point of view and unattributed statements. I suggest that it needs a complete re-write to satisfy our neutral point of view standards.
 * I'm puzzled that you say the statements in the "Assessment" section you have tagged are unattributed:
 * "... it has been argued that the scheme is undemocratic ...": Tey Tsun Hang made this point – footnote 33 at the end of the sentence.
 * "... it has also been argued that since Singapore practices representative democracy, NMPs are useless to the people as, being unelected, they have no incentive to present their views to Parliament": Chiam See Tong – footnote 34.
 * "A similar point has been made by an academic ...": Chua Beng Huat – footnote 37 (needs page reference).
 * "It is also argued that the Special Select Committee lacks transparency in the manner it chooses its candidates ...": Leong Horn Kee – footnote 44.
 * "The view has been taken that the presence of NMPs and their participation in Parliamentary debates have placed pressure on PAP MPs to be less complacent and to be more competent in Parliament": Ho Khai Leong – footnote 36 (needs page reference). — SMUconlaw (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to say who said what in the article, just adding a citation is insufficien. So you need to say something like "Tey Tsun Hang has argued that the scheme is undemocratic ..." You would also need to establish who Tey Tsun Hang is and why their opinion is important. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but won't this make the text rather clunky? It will start sounding like this: "In the view of Tey Tsun Hang, a law professor at the National University of Singapore, ... On the other hand, Member of Parliament Leong Horn Kee says ... In addition, in the opinion of Chua Beng Huat, another academic from the National University of Singapore, ..." My impression is that other articles are not phrased in this manner, and that it is sufficient to provide references for the points made. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is the relevant policy here. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've rephrased this section. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Appears stable
 * 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):
 * All seem to be OK, licensed and captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some progress has been made but there are still unattributed statements, we need to know specifically who made statements, if they are quotes they should be enclosed in quote marks. It is insufficient to simply pace a citation. Thwe whole tone of the artcile makes it rather inaccessible to the general reader.  The article was written as as part of an educational assignment and it may be good as a term paper or essay, it is not a good encyclopaedia article.  Please familiarise yoruself with the style of writing required for Wikipedia artcile by examining examples of our best work.  When these issues have been addressed feel free to renominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)