Talk:Singaporeans/GA2

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Kohlrabi Pickle in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kohlrabi Pickle (talk · contribs) 10:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply


Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review edit

  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is clear, concise and very comprehensible. Spelling and grammar is correct.  Pass
    (b) (MoS) Manual of style requirements are fulfilled.  Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The references that are used are appropriately listed. However, the number of references used is sparse regardless.
    • The first line "Singaporeans or Singaporean people are people identified with or citizens of the city-state of Singapore" -> This is not supported by the citation given. There is no mention of people identified with Singapore, and the definition is an overly restrictive one. It is also odd to use a biography for a legal definition of a Singaporean citizen. One would simply go to the Constitution of Singapore for that.
    • The second line is contentious and uncited. "Historically" is a loose word with little meaning, but it misleadingly suggests that the ethnic mix referred to is a native one. In fact, it is only a few centuries old, so this is verifiably false.
    • There are more - I'm inviting the editor to comb the article and edit them through.
     Fail
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The sources that are used are all reliable. Mixture of books, reputable news sites, think tanks, and primary sources.  Pass
    (c) (original research) There is some original research here, as indicated in point 1 under (references).  Fail
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Copyright violation tool revealed no irregularities.  Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article suffers greatly from circular reasoning. E.g. "the vast majority of Singaporeans have been Singaporeans..." (Singaporean = Singaporean) For a society that is new and largely immigrant, which was held together by colonial rule until just over 50 years ago, there is far too little discussion about what "Singaporean" means. The definition is largely assumed, and minority groups are fit into it peripherally.

    I think there is insufficient coverage of ethnic influences on contemporary society. There is some connection made to Chinese, Indian and Malay societies, but only cursorily. There is also insufficient attention given to other societal groups, which may have been more or less prominent historically.
     Fail
    (b) (focused) There are a couple of lines of loose connection to the article. The line on Racial Harmony Day requires an explanation. For example, it is worthwhile to point out that Singapore has historically had racial tensions (most prominently in the 1960s), and that the current social makeup is partly a result of education, strict laws, and social engineering. This gives greater context to Singapore society. Without this context, the line on Racial Harmony Day is of very limited relevance.  Fail
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    There is certainly no deliberate bias, but there is an apparently unconscious privileging of the official position of what a Singaporean is: a Singapore citizen, following the Singapore government's CMIO model, with anyone else on the periphery. This can be remedied by a more thorough treatment of the "identity" component of the Singaporean, which is highlighted in the first line. This is not a strong bias, so I'm going to pass this section anyway.  Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    The article is stable.  Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No copyright issues with images.  Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Images are used appropriately.  Pass

Result edit

Result Notes
 Fail This is a great attempt by the editor to put together an article on Singaporeans. Unfortunately, the article has some basic issues to fix (which the nominator was not available to address) and also needs a more thorough treatment (even in summary form) of Singaporean history, society, identity, citizenship before it can qualify as GA. It would be good for the nominator to consult similar pages on the nationals of other countries.

Discussion edit

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.