Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Chief Secretary, Singapore/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Chief Secretary, Singapore

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it is translated from a "good article" on the Chinese Wikipedia and I wish to promote it to good article status. All comments on the article are welcome.

Thanks, HYH.124 (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RO

edit
Lead
  • highest ranking government civil positions in the colonial Singapore
"the colonial Singapore"? That article seems unnecessary.
I beg to differ; The link redirects to Singapore in the Straits Settlements, which I think is necessary and useful for readers to find out more about British colonial rule in Singapore. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph is too long. Split it up into two.
Done. How is it now? Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the war, in 1946,
1946 implies "after the war", so this is redundant.
Done. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "Colonial Secretary" was later changed into "Chief Secretary" in 1955
Changed to, not changed into.
Done. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the position was finally abolished in 1959
The use of "finally" here is odd. Just say it was abolished.
Done. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background of its creation
  • extend their influence to the Malay Peninsula as early as in the late eighteenth century.
Drop "in" and just say "as early as the late eighteenth century".
Done. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • a trading settlement in Singapore; He appointed Resident of Malacca
It's not necessary to cap the first word after a semicolon.
Done. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, when the Straits Settlements
Phrases like, "on the other hand" should be avoided in formal writing.
I dropped "On the other hand". Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the ultimate control
Same with words like "however".
I beg to differ. But feel free to give suggestions if you have! Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Straits Settlements
  • On one hand, the status and On the other hand
This is too conversational and informal.
That's your own personal opinion. Could you take a look at this web page first? Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, both the Governor and Colonial
Same
I do not agree with you. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The responsibilities of the Resident-General of the FMS and the Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements did not overlap, but both were similar in nature
Consider adding some of the responsibilities.
Readers could refer to the "Major responsibilities and powers" if they are interested. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence, he held relatively more powers
Avoid "hence".
I do not agree. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'the then-Colonial Secretary Stanley Jones was revoked from his position and he returned to the United Kingdom due to alleged ineffective defence coordination
Fix this run-on.
Done. How is it now? Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • both of them were imprisoned
Instead of "both of them" you should just say "they".
Done. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution after World War II
  • In the 1950s, constitutional amendments were made several times in preparation for self-governance in Singapore.
This is awkward. How about, "In preparation for self-governance in Singapore, several constitutional amendments were passed during the 1950s"?
I don't know whether the amendments were "passed", so I shall not modify this sentence for the time being. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • arrangements; Under British suzerainty
No caps needed following a semicolon.
Done. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Major responsibilities and powers
  • i.e. their predecessor
Don't use i.e. or e.g. in formal writing.
I do not agree. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 1 April 1946, Singapore became a crown colony, reducing the Colonial Secretary's jurisdiction to only Singapore
Be sure this isn't repetitive with previous material, as this has already been stated.
It is all right as long as it is not too repetitive. This is in a different section and is the second mention in the article; moreover, the mention here is that the CS's jurisdiction was reduced to Singapore. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was worth mentioning that the Colonial Secretary had the power
Drop the informal introduce introduction.
Done. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Career paths
  • no locals had ever been appointed as Colonial Secretary or Chief Secretary
Should "had" be "have"?
No. The position of CS had been abolished, it is not possible for anyone to be appointed anymore. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than them
Drop this as informal.
Done. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All holders of the position had resided in Sri Temasek from 1869 to 1859
Odd use of past perfect, so drop "had".
Done. Mr Huang (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion

This is a nice piece overall. The biggest issue with prose is use of informal introductory phrases. The punctuation is pretty solid too, except that you shouldn't use caps after a semicolon. Some of the details get a little burdensome, which is always a challenge when the goal is to be comprehensive. There might be some minor repetition of facts, so be sure you aren't mentioning things more than necessary. Nicely done; keep up the great work! RO(talk) 16:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MPJ

edit

Having read through the article I have a comments and suggestions, just my two cent of constructive input.

  • Common name - article named after the name used for 4 out of the 92 years it existed. It clearly covers the first 88 years in detail as well.
    No. Common name refers to that of the position, in which the name before it got abolished should be used. Thus I beg to differ. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • when i read the lead i thought the position only existed post war, but it was just called something else in that period. The wording threw me off a bit.
    If you read the entire lead, I thought it would not give you this feel. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a red link should be in the "see also" template, mainly because you cannot "see also" in an article that does not exist.
    Done. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the local language names should be in italics, see WP:ITALICS for further details.
    I did, unless if you could point out any that I didn't. And if you are referring to Hanyu Pinyin annotations for Chinese characters, there is no such need and would be inappropriate too. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " located in the Malay Peninsula, with the Governor of the Straits Settlements concurrently as High Commissioner of the United Kingdom to Malaya." There seems to be something missing in that statement?
    I copy-edited that sentence. It means that the four states located in the Malay Peninsula became known as the FMS, while the Governor of the SS served concurrently as UK High Commissioner to Malaya. Do you have any suggestions to improve the sentence? Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hence, he held relatively more powers as compared with the Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements.", i am not sure the power of the high commissioner compared to the secretary was established?
    The High Commissioner is also the Governor of the Straits Settlements; the Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements was obviously second to the him. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last part of the "Straits Settlements" section is unsourced, for GA/FA that would have to be addressed.
    I will address that later. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and to distinguish between the two positions in terms of their functions and powers.". It is not define what that difference is, the term "renamed" implies that was the only real change, but that sentence implies otherwise.
    Rephrased. How is it? Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major responsibilities and powers section. States it was second only to the Governor. Earlier it was states that the "Resident-General" had more power, seems contradictory?
    Okay, this is interesting! The FMS and SS are two different jurisdictions. The High Commissioner to FMS, concurrently held by the Governor of SS, was supposed to be in charge of the FMS. However, both the Governor and Chief Secretary (CS) of SS are stationed in Singapore, thus in reality, the Resident-General had more powers than the CS of SS as the CS is under the Governor, even though the Resident-General is nominally under the High Commissioner. Status/rank is different as compared to real power. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the section on chinese names and warrants and arrests seems to be a side note, not sure if that level of details is appropriate there? Judgement call I guess.
    I shall leave it there first, but I think it is quite useful for readers. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Other than them" - i would suggest simply using "additionally", the other phrase sounds odd me.
    Dropped. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Of course, there were holders who retired " seems more like a casual comment, might be worth rephrasing that one.
    Sentence rephrased. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the shortest serving perhaps indicate the length, days? Week? Months?
    I might need to ask the original author of this article. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and welfare similar to that of colonial secretaries or chief secretaries in other British colonies" i probably have to read the other article to see what the definition of "welfare" was?
    One's welfare is wide-ranging, it means the welfare you get from being in a job. Feel free to provide suggestions for improvement. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is the definition of "main acting"?? Not sure if i could tell the criteria for being listed.
    I might need to ask the original author of this article. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • would you consider making the table sortable?
    No. For other lists of officeholders on Wikipedia, they are also arranged only in chronological order. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure the See also section at the bottom should have red links? I cannot actually "see" anything after all?
    Agreed and done. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • i have not checked sources to make sure all statements are covered by the sources, but i know especially FA reviews looks for everything to be attributable.
    I understand and would work with the original author to adjust accordingly. Mr Huang (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I was able to give you some input you feel is helpful. Let me know if you have questions.  MPJ-US  22:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review itself

edit

@Rationalobserver and MPJ-DK: Hello, sorry for the late reply! Have been busy in real life all these while and have not been notified instantly when both of you reviewed. I'll address all your comments soon, thank you for your patience. Mr Huang (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mr Huang (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Chief_Secretary,_Singapore/archive1&oldid=1084305672"