Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore Changi Airport/archive1

Singapore Changi Airport
I've noticed all the hard work by WP:AIRPORTS participants, local editors and those just interested in the airport, with over 1450 edits. It meets all of the criteria at WP:FA?, so far as I can tell:


 * 1) It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
 * 2) It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects
 * 3) It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
 * 4) It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I see this article as also having many of the criteria set forth in WP:TPA. We've gone through both a Peer Review and a WikiProject Peer Review without much participation, though the automated review helped the article immensely.

Let the merciless editing and review begin! thadius856talk 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose To start off, the prose is too choppy. There are too many sections that can be combined for succinctness (like Passenger Terminals can be merged into the Terminals section and the transportation sections can be merged into a single subtopic). As of now, the information seems all over the place, not a very good feature of an FA article. Much more work needs to be done to bring it to FA status. --210 physicq  ( c ) 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article as it stands lacks plenty of crucial information one would expect from an airport article, in particular on its architecture and design philosophy. The Airline services section looks undeveloped. And the entire piece looks disjointed in that it appears to be the result of tussling between factions undecided on just what kind of information an airport article should have.--Huaiwei 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, article does not have enough information to qualify for FA status. Parts of the article do not meet FA standards and the history section is rather vague, not a detailed history. The airport's architecture and security section is not updated, and there is no mention of the cargo section of the airport. Needs some more improvement, until we can send it for FAC again. --Ter e nce Ong (C 01:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentThe lists in the article can be put into another article to make it less complicated. AgreeIt should to able to become a FA if the lists are made into another article.Gravity Talk 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)