Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore/Article Assessment

Singapore Categories?

What about categories dealing with Singapore? Should they be assessed by using Cat or NA? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

SatuSuro discussed with me the possibility of category assessment several months back - but has unfortunately just taken a wikibreak. Perhaps we could add the Cat class, for clarity, since most NA articles are lists. Orderinchaos, SatuSuro's counterpart, could help us if, like me, you guys are not familiar with templates. - SpLoT // 10:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you made a good point there. I will now began to change the following categories to the appropriate class. Thanks for sharing with me your point of view. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Specific topic for importance assessment

@Justanothersgwikieditor: I'm trying to write up some guidelines for some specific topics for the importance assessment so any reader can look at them and have some idea of how to classify its importance. I noticed some articles have different ratings depending on the rater even though they technically have the same level importance. I thought you might have an input on this since you have assessed many articles before (not sure who else does).

I'm trying to make the guidelines somewhere between this one (physics) and this one (Malaysia). Probably not too overly detailed like the physics one because its hard to grasp the importance of everything in SG, but with slightly more detail for specific topics. I have some examples of topics I would like to include since I've rated them before:

• Elections: Generally high to top importance since it involves everyone in SG (except the city and municipal elections before independence in which only a select few can vote). I rated top importance for general elections after independence since they are usually noticed internationally. Presidential elections could be top if they are contested, and high if they uncontested. (not done)
• Members of Parliment: At least mid-importance as they are elected public figures. MPs holding a Cabinet appointment may be elevated to high-importance. (not done)
• Planning areas and subzones: I rated all planning areas as mid-importance. Subzones were rated as low-importance, but thinking about it, they should be mid too.

We could include more topics, but I would need to think about it more. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@AquaDTRS: Ultimately importance guidelines are pretty much subjective so many raters have different standards and subject to each project. For the three points that you mentioned, I agree with your points and the supporting reasons with them.

Expanding on the subjective nature, default elections should be at the minimum rated as high, uncontested stays as high and contested Top. Even for a GE, depending on the stakes on it, reasons why it was called and the aftermath could be rated as Top (example 2011 GE which was widely termed to be a watershed election with lotsa of coverage, even 2020 GE with the many changes that come with it), so this is very subjective also.

For my ratings, I usually goes with "if this page does not exist, what is the impact of this missing page of information (subjective to Singapore's context)?". I usually go by my first instinct (which can be biased though I try to re frame it neutrally as much as possible) and I usually will not argue on the rating as said, it is too subjective and we do not have enough Singaporean editors to give a meaningful discussion and, pun intended, its importance as a whole is not that significant.

Thank you for the initiative on providing a better framework! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor: Thanks for your feedback. I agree with the subjectivity of the rating system which is why I thought of reasoning out why certain topics should fall within one or two levels of importance. But it is also probably true that there aren't enough SG editors to be able to start a meaningful discussion and to construct a framework purely through discussion. Perhaps moving forward, a solution would be to record what was already done and categorised so that editors in future can have something to reference, and if we get to a point where we can start a dispute discussion, then there will be an opportunity to move this forward. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for “Future”-class assessment.

Some articles concern stuff related to the future (Cross Island MRT line, Tengah, etc.), so it would be appropriate for this class to apply to such articles that are already Start-class and above. Thanks. Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 06:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. WikiProject United States has it already. Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 06:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)