Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Singapore/archive1

History of Singapore
Many editors have contributed to this article. It provides a broad overview of the subject, with a number of daughter articles available to furnish the details. It has many references and the content is stable. --Vsion 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, the lead is full of weasel words and does not provide a very good summary of the whole article. Fair use images don't have rationales, I'm not sure about some that are claimed as PD either, as there is no verfication prodided on Wikpedia for copyright expiry for Singapore to back up the claim that they are PD. I'm also uneasy about the use of LOC country studies as reliable sources - they shouldn't be wrong - but they might be. It's not as if there aren't lots of good books to use, even the LOC has a list of sources they used.--Peta 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mind you, the LOC is a neutral take on what the government pumps out in its education system every day, so IMO it's a fairly reputable source to use, given that I find nothing particularly wrong about them and it's basically a source for facts citizens have been schooled about. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. per Peta. Also, an article of this length should have a lengthier lead. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO for a country with a history of less than 200 years, the lead has enough information; of course if you think otherwise, please suggest on how to lengthen the lead.


 * Comment'. Sorry, how is the lead full of weasel words? A lead section is a lead section, it's supposed to have weasel words for risk of being wordy (see Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia). Why should it be longer? As I see it - this is the perfect size for a lead section, which isn't supposed to exceed 2-3 paragraphs. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see a couple of weasel words right off the bat: "a relatively minor role" and "becoming one of the most important port cities." How about "a minor role" and "becoming a key [or 'pivotal,' or 'influential'] port city"?  My rule of thumb regarding the length of the lede is that if a topic is important enough to merit a section heading, it's important enough to be in the lede.  That's not the case here.  Either some of the sections should be consolidated, or the lede should be expanded, or both. Peirigill 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I went through and typo-edited the entire article, not that there were many to find. I will say that it's really anoying to look for typos in this though- silly British spellings, with your U's and your S's. --PresN 03:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Perhaps the editors of the article could decide on whether they wish to use British English or American English. I've spotted a mix of both after skimming through the article. --R4ge 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Support. The article lead seems to have been extended, and I believe the weasel words have been removed. Overall it gives a very accurate and detailed history of the country. R4ge 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)