Talk:Parliament of Singapore/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 23:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I have overlooked this article multiple times and I have found no spelling or grammatical mistakes within the article. The dates are formatted correctly and there are no glaring mistakes in it.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * All claims in this article are sourced and there are almost three hundred references. There are no major unsourced claims in this article that I can find.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article covers a wide scope of ideas from the history of the parliament, how it operates, functions of the parliament, the building it operates in, past sessions of the parliament, and leadership in the parliament.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * There is no political or nationalist bias in this article.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * There have only been eleven edits since August 28, 2019.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The images showing the parliamentary building and multiple important leaders throughout the parliament's history are reasonably placed and are placed in the correct areas with captions that match and explain the pictures. All of the infoboxes are well written and placed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article covers the history of the organization with no bias, adequate sourcing, great usage of images and infoboxes (especially on the past elections and committee infoboxes), and is stable. Using other GA parliament articles I see no difference in quality between them are this article.