Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 2

Singapore
This article failed FAC a month ago, but after some copyediting and substantial changes by good editors, I feel that the previous problems have been addressed and I strongly believe the article is ready to become a featured article. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support flockofpidgeons 00:22 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support 172 03:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Natalinasmpf 02:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Small note: I can withdraw my support at any time if something undesirable occurs, right? Natalinasmpf 02:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Johnleemk | Talk 07:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Excellent work. --Zappaz 03:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a vote because I don't want to make people do things they don't want to, but I'd like to see the sections reorganised to follow WikiProject_Countries more.  At the moment the ToC is overlong and difficult to swallow: religion could go under demographics, for example, foreign relations under government, and communications and transportation under miscellaneous for a start. Also, since the singapore wiki at http://www.sgwiki.com/ has virtually no content, I find its inclusion in the external links unjustifiable. Mark1 05:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I looked at the site, it seems to be an offshoot of a wikipedia sponsored project, is it? Because if it is, it shouldn't be removed, just encourage people to contribute to it. It could be not, then we could simply remove it. -- Natalinasmpf 23:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of offshoots of wikimedia projects, but most of them (like this one) have failed to take off and are just embarrassing.  I don't believe that this is an actual wikimedia project, so it's not comparable to wikiquote etc. Mark1 00:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done my best to fix this up, merging sections as I saw fit and reorganising those that were kept. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, some of the reorganising you did Johnlee is good, but I dislike the term "miscellenous" and some should not be grouped under that, but really either moved or merged to other sections. Especially under education - maybe civil issues or demographics, because education does fit there.. I will try to do this myself if I have the time. -- Natalinasmpf 23:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose. Broadly same grounds as Jiang; I personally prefer if the communications, transport and education sections have their own sections proper.JuntungWu 06:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC). Also, I oppose the line "Public transportation in Singapore is relatively easy, convenient and cheap to use", specifically the word "cheap". JuntungWu 06:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Also, the bit about "Economy" does not mention financial services. JuntungWu 06:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. JuntungWu 13:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose (at the time being). Sections with separate main articles are too long. &mdash; Instantnood 22:14, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * which ones?--Jiang
 * Basically all sections with separate main articles.  &mdash; Instantnood 14:42, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they ain't long enough already! JuntungWu 08:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Miscellaneous section should be reorganized. Transportation and Communications are long enough to be their own sections. Maybe move discussion of law to politics or provide a fitting heading? --Jiang 22:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The Miscellaneous section has been reverted to its original separate sections. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Since the miscellaneous section has been reverted, wouldn't this be satisfactory to remove this particular oppose? -- Natalinasmpf 15:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Juntung, you cast a "support" vote already.. :-)  &mdash; Instantnood 14:43, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind, but forgot to cross the support vote. But I've crossed the oppose vote anyway. JuntungWu 03:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sections separated, see above. In regarding the word "cheap", I'm a bit surprised, it's basically the same justification used on the lead section of the MTR article but I guess I made the mistake of assumption, it should be fixed now. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. Support again. JuntungWu 03:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)