Talk:History of Singapore/GA1

GA Reassessment

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)

• References 2, 18, 9, 44, 35, 54, 49, 55, 46, and 14 are no longer active. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 12:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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 However, a number of references are no longer active (see above).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)