Talk:Singapore Institute of International Affairs

advice
I was the admin who deleted the earlier version of the article, which was a copy. I see some of it has been rewritten, principally by being shortened, some paraphrased. I'm not sure everyone would think the paraphrase sufficiently far from the original to be totally satisfying, but it is at any rate certainly not unquestionable copyvio.

However, the article still uses wording that is praise without specific meaning, and without specific references, such as "influential reports", and is full of public relations jargon, like "with experts across the spectrum of society". This is not encyclopedic writing. But since the Institute is I think probably notable, what it needs is not deletion, but some further rewriting. I frequently do it for articles such as these, and I have done at least some of it

But there is another problem: the article is totally missing references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Every substantial reference from it is its own reports.  DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)