Talk:Singapore Improvement Trust/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 07:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments
It's good to see articles on important but unglamorous topics like this at GAN. I'd like to offer the following comments:
 * " and ordering the demolition of buildings it deemed unsanitary for people to live in" - bit awkward wording
 * I've rewritten it as "marking out unsanitary buildings for demolition".
 * Should Housing and Development Authority and the Planning Authority be linked? (including red linked?)
 * Housing and Development Authority has been linked to Housing and Development Board, but I don't believe that the Planning Authority should be linked.
 * "called for back-lane improvement schemes, which had minimal effects on the surroundings" - it's not clear what this means
 * I've rewritten the statement as "the construction of back lanes", and included the reason for constructing the back lanes.
 * "with Edwin Percy Richards as deputy chairman" - who was the chairman? (or was the SIT led by the Municipal Commission's deputy?
 * Sources aren't clear about this, so I've removed the statement.
 * "was rejected by the government in 1924" - which government? (the local Singapore colonial government, the city council, the UK government, etc?)
 * The colonial government (added to article).
 * More broadly, the 'background' section should place the Trust in the context of how Singapore was run in the pre-war colonial era.
 * Added a statement stating that the SIT was intended to control housing and planning in Singapore.
 * Please provide the relevant page number for each time reference 7 (Fraser, James M. (April 1952). "Town Planning and Housing in Singapore") is cited - a range of 20 pages is too large
 * "The SIT lost the case, so such declarations were no longer carried out" - was this because the case established that the SIT lacked the power to do this, or were they regarded as too difficult after the court case?
 * The declarations were regarded as too difficult.
 * What happened to the SIT during Japanese occupation? Was it disbanded?
 * I've added a statement noting that the Japanese authorities took over the SIT's responsibilities during that time period.
 * Please provide the exact pages the cited material is supported by for references 1, 22 (where there seems to be an error in the page range field), 26 and 27
 * "a Senior Staff with 24 officers, a Subordinate Staff with over 200 personnel, as well as around 300 workers who acted as supervisors or carried out maintenance" - when was this as of? (presumably the number of workers varied over time?)
 * The source states that this was as under the Improvement Ordinance with amendments, so I've put the publication date of the source (1952).
 * I've added my responses to the comments. R22-3877 (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those changes look great, and I'm very pleased to pass this nomination. Thanks for your work on this very interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added my responses to the comments. R22-3877 (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those changes look great, and I'm very pleased to pass this nomination. Thanks for your work on this very interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Spot checks were fine
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Spot checks did not detect any issues, and the article's prose is not suggestive of copyright violations
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: