Talk:History of Singapore/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Junipers Liege in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Commencing GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 11:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • Well written. Minor problems with phrasing were corrected.  
    b (MoS):
    • Conforms to manual of style. Overlinking was a problem in this article but has been reduced per WP:OVERLINK.  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • The article is fairly well referenced. However, a number of references are no longer active (see above). As these were fairly minor sources it has not been seen necessary to fail the article - but they must be fixed asap, by either resource the material or removing it from the article. Additionally, some sections were heavily reliant upon a single source, especially the early history of Singapore. These sections would benefit from the introduction of alternative and complimentary references.  
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • Citations are to third party publications.  
    c (OR):
    • No evidence of OR.  
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.  
    b (focused):
    • Remains focused. No digressions.  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    • No issues concerning POV evident.  
  5. It is stable:
    • No edit wars etc.  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • Images are properly tagged and justified.  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Images are accompanied by contextual captions. 
  7. Overall:
    Keep/Delist: KEEP   ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 15:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply