Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive

Singapore
The abovementioned article is informative and detailed, covering many aspects of the country and backed up with many good images. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, though the writing style of the second paragraph of the history section is noticeably different than that of the rest of the article. --Spangineer &#8734; 22:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support violet/riga (t) 23:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Object for now: the single reference given (oddly given as one citation, but referring to several sites) does not, I presume, account for all the information in the article. Also the lead is inadequate: it needs an extra paragraph summarising the material in each section. Mark1 07:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, would still like to see more general and quality references. Insufficient references. Even three is borderline if they don't verify nearly all of the material in the article. Also an inconsistency I saw: The climate section notes "with no distinct seasons." and the next paragraph starts "The climate of Singapore can be divided into two main seasons,". For one, which is it?, and for another, citations to sources would help in cases like this and others. - Taxman 14:45, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * For the above two objections, I've checked and added references where the figures can be verified. The climate section has been corrected for consistency. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That is better, but please format the references as in Cite sources. Also it wouldn't be hard to get more reliable print references from the library I wouldn't think. - Taxman 13:52, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Mailer Diablo 16:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that encourage people to include references that aren't used? That's not the objective, is it? violet/riga (t) 16:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course not. The reference can be added after the fact if an editor uses it to check and verify the material in the article. That is the only way it can be acceptable. Mailer Diablo, can you confirm you actually read the added source and that it substantially agrees with what is in the relevant section? A general reference for the country as a whole would be ideal as there are still areas of the article that do not seem covered by the listed sources. - Taxman 20:00, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * For online references, they can be found in the 'External links' of various main sub-sections of the article and occasionally on the text itself. Except for a few outdated figures (like population) that I've changed or if my eyes missed anything out, the data should have been verified. I'll try and trace for more sources at best. :) - Mailer Diablo 20:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You can also cite them directly in the references, as it's not obvious they were used if they're in the external links section. Johnleemk | Talk 13:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I do think that some editors will abuse it by seeing a references FAC objection and just stick them in to appease people. violet/riga (t) 11:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are only links at the bottom to Communications in Singapore, Education in Singapore, Foreign relations of Singapore, Military of Singapore, Religion in Singapore, and Tourism in Singapore. These should all have their own sections, with the links to the main articles. Neutralitytalk 07:03, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, great work. But I'd also want some mention of J.B. Jeyaretnam and Michael Fay before I support, so I still object. Neutralitytalk 03:43, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. - Mailer Diablo 09:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But the article has two issues that remain. First, the article should mention something (one or two sentences) about Singapore and the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake. Secondly, the "communications" section needs to be expanded (and a separate "media" section should also be made). Sentences like "The print media is dominated by a company with close ties to the government" are a bit vague; surely The Straits Times should be specifically mentioned. I still object. Great job on responding to voters so far! Regards --Neutralitytalk 16:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Singapore's one of the most important ports in the world, but there's no description of the modern port in the article. Also, land reclamation and fresh drinking water issues are too important not to be mentioned somewhere in the article. --Confuzion 09:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There's something about the land and water issues now. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor objections to the revised geography section: the section (and the main article linked to) should be called Geography and Geography of Singapore, since climate is one element of geography; also I would require some convincing that the northeast and southeast monsoons should have capital letters. Mark1 07:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed the titling and linking, but I'm not sure why we capitalise the monsoons; we just do. In Malaysia they're capitalised in our Geography textbook, IIRC, so it's just convention here, I guess. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I liked the sectioning, with the ability to go to the various separate articles if the reader wants to learn more. The article made it easy to learn about the city, when most of my previous knowledge was the bad press the Michael Fay vandalism and caning incident got a few years ago. Good job, here. Vaoverland 21:09, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - The panoramic picture at the end doesn't have a source and looks like it's been scanned from a book. I thought there was no need to mention Michael Fay except in Laws of Singapore but if Neutrality and Vaoverland wants it then so be it. Other than that it looks good. --JuntungWu 11:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Left a message on uploader (Mjanich)'s talk page and see if he responds. --JuntungWu 11:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, a small panorama at the bottom of the article isn't doing much good anyway.  Regardless of the source, I think we could stand losing it. Mark1 03:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removed. Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In which case strong support. --JuntungWu 15:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The Michael Fay case was and still is for most people the cause for most of what they know about modern Singapore. It also represented the biggest diplomatic issue between the US and Singapore in recent years. So yes I think it is worth mentioning, even while taking into account that not everything should revolve around US affected issues. - Taxman 13:37, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The present page is still rather messy.  There are purple patches of prose all over, and some are unnecessarily detailed while others sketchy. This is still very far from a featured article, unless someone do some judicious copyedit in my opinion. Mandel 09:48, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)