Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 4

Singapore[edit]

This article had three previous nominations, the last one dating over a year ago. The article has gone through extensive revision, copyediting and improvement since then, and I think it has achieved that degree of integrated completeness, and it is a perfect example of good usage of Wikipedia:Summary. I think it is an excellent candidate. Possible objections I anticipate is the need for more references or footnotes, but that can be quickly brought over from the subpages if needed, I don't see this as a major problem. Since peer review wasn't extensive as hoped, I at least hope that pushing for FAC will put us in a proper direction. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- You should add the {{IndicText}} template. Also, the large pic at the bottom is covering up a box. --Osbus 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! For placement of {{IndicText}} template, I placed it under the main infobox, as per precedent set by Tamil language. --Vsion 02:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A well-written article, and is comprehensive in information on various aspects of the subject-country including history, culture, transport, etc. It has improved considerably and certainly deserves a FA-status. --Vsion 02:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are so few references. joturn e r 03:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object For the following reasons:

Weak support. My suggestions have been addressed. This is a well written article, but I do feel that it can still use some tweaking. Getting rid of trivial wiki links is one area that the authors may want to look into (eg. wiki links for electronics, manufacturing, fishing, village, confidence, island, etc. should probably be deleted.) Otherwise, good effort. AreJay 20:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- There needs to be some consistancy wrt the referencing format in this article. It looks like you've used <ref> which is fine, but needs to be followed consistantly in the article. For example, references in the Politics and government section have direct link embeds.

Points 1,3,4 are addressed (correctly, I hope). The remaining concern is about the few number of references. Part of the reason is because most of the material was written before the "ref" element was "invented". I will try to find and add references, especially for the politics and government section as suggested. It can be done. Cheers. --Vsion 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Many references have been added, please re-evaluate. Thanks! --Vsion 22:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Definately better. However you will need to dig a little deeper wrt the references. The History and Demographics sections are for the most part bereft of in line citations. Although quantity is certainly no guarantee of quality, I would expect to see in-line citations numbering between 30-40 in an article of this size. It would be illogical for me to hold you to that range; however I do feel that the article could use more in-line citations. Also, not to nitpick, but per WP:FOOTNOTE, the format for in-line citations is text → punctuation (if needed) → reference. (eg. some text.^[1]). Some of your in-line citations have a space between the period and the in-line reference. Sorry, I know that's being really being nitpicky, but I think these things are ultimately important in a featured article.

2. Also, please remove wikilinks for orphaned years and months per WP:MOSDATE. Only specific dates (such as October 1, 2005) should be wikified. AreJay 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These items have been addressed. Please take another look. --Vsion 11:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better. However, I attempted to go through the article to see if any minor copyediting might be required, and it appears to me now that this article needs a considerable amount of copyediting. The Tourism section contains considerable POV statements — I wouldn't want to list them here since I think a general copyedit of the article will be able to bring those statements to light. That whole section on babies in Demographics reads funny. In History, it says Singapore was expelled from the federation, but dosen't say why. Many of these issues can be remediated through proof-reading and copy-editing the article. A fresh pair of eyes may be able to catch these errors, can you request someone to look over the article and perhaps proof-read/copy-edit it for you? AreJay 04:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the history part, the full details are clarified in the subarticle. Also, the reason for expulsion is implied: "after heated ideological conflict, Singapore was expelled from the Federation"....I think that is reason enough. Of course, the precise, detailed reason is that the Tunku called a parliament meeting in Kuala Lumpur on August 9, in order to put Singapore's expulsion to the vote, which was approved unanimously because of Tunku's speech that Singapore had not shown a single element of loyalty to the central govermment (see history of Singapore). How does the section on babies read funny? After all, other developed Asian societies - South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong et al. are concerned about their birth rate too, and similar language was used in the Straits Times. In what way should it be corrected? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on History. The babies statement appears to have been corrected. At the time of my objection it read something along the lines of "30,000 babies are produced each year..." or something to that effect. In light of the changes, I will give the article another read-through and make minor copyediting changes where needed. If the article looks okay, you'll have my vote. AreJay 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support.-- 陈鼎翔贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good article. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—Poorly written (Criterion 2a). Let's look at every sentence in the second para of the lead.

"The site of several ancient port cities and a possession of several empires in its history, Singapore was a Malay fishing village when it was colonised by the United Kingdom in the 19th century."

Why does "in its history" apply to "several empires", but not to colonisation in the 19th century?

"It was further occupied by the Japanese Empire in World War II, and was later part of the merger which formed the Federation of Malaysia."

Remove "further", since you haven't discussed any prior occupation, as such. Remove "the merger which formed".

"When Singapore acquired independence, it was originally sociopolitically volatile and economically undeveloped, and had few natural resources."

Remove "originally". Do you mean that S's "natural resources" somehow materialised after independence?

"Foreign investment and rapid government-led industrialisation has since created an economy which relies on exports of electronics and manufacturing from its port."

"relies on the export of" would be better. Consider removing "from its port"; I'm sure S's export performance occurs in a number of modes, including financial services on the Internet.

"More than 90 percent of Singapore's population lives in housing estates constructed by the Housing Development Board and nearly half use the public transport system daily."

Awkward mixture of percentage and fraction.

"As a result of public transport and environmental initiatives by government ministries, Singapore's pollution is mostly isolated from heavy industry on Jurong Island."

The last clause is ambiguous: is it the pollution or the heavy industry that is isolated on Jurong Island? Or perhaps pollution and heavy industry are isolated from each other, but only on JI?

"Politically, Singapore is a representative democratic socialist country that has adopted a welfare system, although de facto, it has a dominant-party system."

"Politically" is falsely contrasted with "de facto". A lot of readers will probably gag at the democratic socialist bit. This is dangerously like POV, and is not referenced or justified. Better to treat this in more detail in the body of the article rather than at the top.

"The government of Singapore has attracted controversy for some policies it has taken to achieve its development."

What, the government's development? Even if you mean Singapore's development, it smells a bit POV to me, especially as a bald statement in the lead.

Tony 15:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of interpolating responses (in brown) to Vsion's rejoinder below. (Tony)

Thanks for the feedback. I am still confused at seeing how it is poorly written. Perhaps there are some misinterpretations, which I will be glad to fix but don't see how the suggestions clarify it. (In most cases, they should make the prose crystal clear. These are only examples from the opening; I was demonstrating that the whole text needs this intensity of editing. Can you find someone who's not close to the writing of the text to run through it carefully? I'd offer, but I'm very busy until the start of May.) It is a well-established fact that there is controversy, especially with it being called authoritarian or politically repressive, and then a debate whether it is or not. (So instead, let's examine the controversy in greater detail in the body of the text; at the top, there's no room for the detail that is required to contextualise these assertions.)

The Jurong Island thing I have attempted to clarify. I do not think mixing percentage and fractions makes it poorly written, but that is minor. (Agreed) Singapore has been called democratic socialist and this is a widespread label because the PAP undertook a democratic socialist policy, and this is evident in much of its subsidy programs. (The devil is in the detail; what kind of subsidies? Whose interests are served? It's just too thorny an issue to treat explicitly at the top.) Singapore's port is the most dominant form of export - other forms of export, such as rail, or by road, or even by air, is minor. (Goods come in from Johor, usually not towards Johor.) (OK.)

Anyway about the empires issue, the British Empire is included. Does it somehow imply that the British Empire was excluded? The intention was the fact that Singapore was a possession of several empires before it was reduced to a fishiing village, and become part of several empires again after it was reduced to a fishing village. (How it became reduced to a fishing village is not historically clear as there are few records between the razing by the Portugese and 1819.) (My point was: remove "in its history" as redundant, which will solve the problem of referring to only some empires as historical.) I also am confused about why to remove "further" from occupations, as "further occupations" include being possessed by the other empires, does it not? (You haven't explicitly referred to colonisation and inclusion in empires as "occupations", and strictly speaking, they may be different conditions. Remove "further" to avoid fuzziness.) Also, Malaysia is called Malaysia today because of Singapore's entry, if not for its merger, there wouldn't need to be for an entry of Sabah and Sarawak to balance the added Chinese population (rationale at the time0 - debatable of course, but it had a major role in forming the merger; otherwise without "formed" it looks like it joined an existing Federation for a few years, then left, akin to joining a party then realising one dislikes it and leaving, an impression which was definitely not the case. I have addressed the "originally" issue. (The merge thing is redundant; remove it and the language is simpler and stronger. This goes for the whole article; there are many other instances of redundancy.) I have rewritten and I hope that the appropriate portions are satisfied but as to some other points I do not know whether it is an actual problem to address.

The original lead section was five paragraphs long, so I had to compress it to about three small paragraphs, which may have resulted in some language discrepancy, but I do not think that means it is "poorly written". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the items have been addressed or explained. Regarding concerns of POV, I'm not sure if the accuracy of those concerned sentences are actually disputed, althought they raise some eyebrows. Presenting various viewpoints have helped to keep the article balanced and unbiased overall. This is the approach we adopt and it works well for articles such as this. --Vsion 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will take those suggestions into criticism, except the part of the merger, which I feel is exceedingly critical to portrayal of the situation. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your angle, but it's not encyclopedic, where neutrality is a strong requirement. The solution is to avoid raising eyebrows at the top, where the level of detail must be restrained; deal with these politically charged issues where you can explore both sides of the argument. Considerable work is still needed on the language of this article. BTW, there is a lot of good about the article, even if it doesn't pass on 2a. Tony 02:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some sections have been summarized, so I hope being concise improves the readibility and reduces the redundancy you mentioned. However, please understand that the word "merger" is important because it is commonly used to describe the forming of Federation of Malaysia and has become synonymous with that historic event. Some publications even use it as a pronoun as "the Merger". Removing the phrase you mentioned would affect the meaning of the sentence and could be misleading as explained by Natalina. --Vsion 13:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO the paragraphs in general could be longer - they arn't too offending as is but I think it would help the structure if they were merged/expanded a bit. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- This is not completely written in summary style. =transport=, =Culture=, =Politics=, =Economy= and =Demographics= can be further summarised. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those sections are now summarized. Please re-evaluate, thanks! --Vsion 13:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed and I still think matter can be cut from this article (ie move it to the main article of the section). In =Demographics= the para on ethnic harmony can be removed since the same could be said for a lot of other countries. The last paragraph on babies reads like there is a factory that mass produces babies. :) Reduce it to one sentence saying that the death rate exceeds the birthrate by x and the government is trying to encourage couple have additional kids. Merge this with para 1. In =transport= remove excess matter on Sing. Airlines. The last three paragraphs can be summarised down to 4 sentences. Talk about: road transport system; private transport and the discouraging of it, and the MRT. The =Tourism= section can be removed completely from this page to reduce the article size. Tourism is often a subjective addition and elements of it can be merged with culture. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, d'accord for most of the suggestions, except that some part of the racial harmony element must remain, given the race riots in 1960's and the existence of a racial harmony day. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is it better for "tourism" to merge into "Economy" section? The culture section is already lengthy. --Vsion 21:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

The tourism section is merged into the "Economy" section, and the other items are also addressed. While racial tension exists in most other countries, racial issues are especially important in Singapore because being a city-state with a short history of nationhood and situated in Southeast Asia, racial conflict threatens national security with dire consequences. In fact, that was what led to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965; and the socio-political situation of the region have not changed much since then. --Vsion 23:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but the sections are still long. I've just summarised a few sections in Kolkata removing excess details and thereby reducing it by 5 kb. (old) (current) Please take a look and emulate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Where is the human rights section? Neutrality^talk 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, why do we need a human rights section? Human rights is not a required part of the main article of a country AFAIK — Singapore hasn't committed any coup d'etats, violent mass murders, and there have been no clear-cut human rights violations, it's not a police state, and political rights is an issue, not human rights. A human rights section should not be a required provision much like any other Western nation does not, I don't think it's part of the standard assortment of sections for countries anyway. I respect Neutrality, but I don't think this objection is a suitable one. If this is because of capital punishment in Singapore, or any such issue for that matter, the execution of Nguyen, or off drug dealers, is way too trivial to warrant any such "human rights section". Furthermore, the United States article only has human rights as part of a subsection of the politics section, and that article is already way too large. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would be one of the things most people consulting an encylopedia article on Singapore would be looking for. Surely it's of more international interest/importance than transport. By my count there are nearly 550 words for transport, but less than 300 words on human rights or international criticism (that's a liberal count). Neutrality^talk 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See People's Republic of China#Human rights. And in the intro: what exactly is a "reduced democracy"? I've heard of illiberal democracy and procedural democracy, but not "reduced democracy." Neutrality^talk 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But to include it would reflect bias: Singapore has no major human rights problems. We have capital punishment in Singapore, and that's already covered as part of law of Singapore and politics of Singapore, and the various topics concerning rights in general is already covered. Why do we need a human rights section? Is the execution of drug traffickers (who are murderers in their own right) who choose run their routes towards a city-state which so values the health of its skilled workers, its only natural resource, as prime so atrocious and vile that we must dedicate a whole section on it? Doing so would definitely violate the undue weight clause of Wikipedia:neutral point of view. After all, unlike the PRC, Singapore is not a police state. Unlike the United States, we don't attack other countries, take random civilians and imprison them in labour camps located in some bay in Cuba. How exactly is the human rights section warranted? Again, we discuss rights and capital punishment, and smashing of political dissent in the respective sections, but we don't need a whole section on it. The PRC article I see only has a subsection, and that's usually not a requirement for FAC. I move to strike this objection. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user doth protest too much. I am not looking to hold a debate, but human rightd are a very important part of Singapore and its international significance. Neutrality^talk 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore holds controversy for some of its laws, and allegations of authoritarianism and gerrymandering. However, human rights is not part of its "international significance". I do protest here. When I go overseas, the first thing foreigners ask me is perhaps about chewing gum, or spitting on sidewalks, but not about human rights. Going from third world to first is significant; questionable ethics in the political scene is significant; having an entire section on human rights is not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To restate again, just because some activist groups think that execution by hanging, or executing someone for drug trafficking is barbaric doesn't mean it is an actual human rights abuse. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, depriving someone of their right to live isn't a human rights abuse :P Imposition of the death penalty is a human rights abuse wherever it happens. - FrancisTyers 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but many countries practice it. I do believe some U.S. states still have gas chambers...the death penalty being widespread, Nguyen was really a minor case in the history of Singapore: there was no rioting, no innocents got killed, no political dissidents were arrested. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definately not saying that there should be a human rights section in the article — for the fourth or fifth time :P — the UK doesn't have one, and many other countries don't have them in their articles. I'm just saying that "executing someone for drug trafficking is barbaric doesn't mean it is an actual human rights abuse" is very blasé. It is a human rights abuse, all applications of the death penalty are. I would have thought you'd have realised that by now. The US regularly violates human rights, as do many countries, this does not mean that it should appear on their article page. -

FrancisTyers 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The human rights section at the PRC area has been integrated as a part of measures to save its FA status, so I think Neutrality's point is moot? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written, very informative. Deserves to be FA L e idi ot 11:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object:

Politics and government section:

Law/justice system - common law? Civil law? Case law? Judges appointed or elected? Appeals? Juries? The judicial branch is only mentioned in passing when discussing the role of the president.

The subarticle states that it is an English common law system that has abolished juries..."The Ordinance VI of 1873 marked the passage of the English Criminal Law in favour of the Indian. The Ordinance did away with indictments and instituted charges for all criminal offences; it abolished the Grand Jury and Special and Common Juries." Is this a vital detail that must be included in the main Singapore aritcle? Should the section be expanded considerably? A lot of these were removed in past FACs which desired a short summary. Who are we to please?

"Critics have called," "Critics claim," "They consider"—Weasel words.

The opposition parties, specifically, such as Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party, Jeyaratnam, as well as the Workers' Party...I will note their inclusion. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite these political issues, Singapore has what its government considers to be a highly successful and transparent market economy."–obviously the government of every nation claims it has a "highly successful and transparent" economy. Quantify and cite. The Economist will do.

Transparency International doesn't count? Statistics are already cited in economy of Singapore further below. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Although dominant in its activities"—What does "dominant" mean. This is ambiguous.
"The government has a clean, corruption-free image."— Unsourced.

Not unsourced. "Singapore has consistently been rated as the least-corrupt country in Asia and amongst the top ten cleanest in the world by Transparency International.[10]" Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified"—Specifically, what statements are prohibited?

Isn't this covered in the subarticle? To elaborate detail would make the article excessively large. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Most recently, the PAP has relaxed some of its socially conservative policies and encouraged entrepreneurship."—Unsourced.

This is covered in Culture of Singapore, IIRC, (I think, if it wasn't moved already) a piece about removing restrictions from bungee jumping and bartop dancing. I will dig up sources. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Official languages are explained, but we need a breakdown by percent of native speakers.

That's in the subarticle. I do not think it should be elaborated here, as that would again make it excessively large. The languages are associated by race, with some overlap, and the identification of the major groups are in the section. Specific numbers would be covered in the subarticle, would it not? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National symbols

Put national symbols in a sidebar as in the India article.

D'accord. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Neutrality^talk 22:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. No media and communication section. 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I must question why that is such a vital content area as to warrant an objection. I'm just frustrated because people object for both having too much detail or too little detail at the same time. What the necessary sections? We are asked to merge the education section but branch out a communications section? Isn't education a more important section anyway? (Both hav been argued considered subsections of culture and economy respectively.) I can bring content in from the respective subarticle if you'd like, but I worry that will just bring in yet another objection from someone else for including it in the first place. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was going to object because of some choppy prose, but I just went ahead and did a copyedit - would have taken me the same amount of time to list the things that needed fixing (scare quotes, inconsistent date style, Yoda speak, repetitive sentence structure, run on sentences, etc). I must object to the unsigned objection above ; media and communication are a part of culture and need not have separate sections. --mav 23:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. Quick breakdown of parliament seats by party is needed. Neutrality^talk 23:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er - just add to your objection above. Only one vote per person please. --mav
  - FAC is not a vote, and I want to make sure the nominator sees the comment. Neutrality^talk 00:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but that is a distortion. It just happens to not operate by simple majority or even supermajority in the strict sense but by consensus (with the aid of votes that MUST be backed up by actionable points if in the negative). So while not a vote itself, the FAC process does use voting. By having TWO bold 'objects' you are in effect vote-stuffing for anybody skimming the balance of bold supports vs objects. Just list all your objections in the same place like everybody else. --mav 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add this yourself - there's information at Parliament of Singapore. My exasperation is up to this point because I am not sure what is trying to be accomplished here, pardon. Why do you need a breakdown of party seats? Heck, the next general election is going to be held pretty soon. It's not vital information to the article - however, the fact that the opposition holds a couple of seats while the PAP holds the rest I will be willing to add/clarify. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't had the time to look through the entire prose again, but I think a second-level subheadings may help accomodate longer prose, as well as some of the objections. - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - I'm very sorry, but in my time here, I've seen the article deteriorate from good to bad. The ultra-condensed dry-as-formula-milk format is very reader-unfriendly. The lesson here is: You can't please everyone. You don't tweak an article by discarding the baby with the bathwater. Unless the article stops reading like a 1960 pedantic textbook where the author sounds awfully uninterested in the subject involved, I doubt I will support any nominations. Even browsing this gives me a headache. Mandel 08:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what is wrong with the tone? I don't see where it looks like uninterest. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandel, please be more specific. Many editors are interested in different subjects about Singapore, we can't accommodate everything in a single article; transfering less important content to more focused articles is a continuous effort; with or without this FAC. --Vsion 19:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I say "condensed milk" I mean the article is squeezing too much info in as little space as possible, and this makes for bad reading. Good prose has flow, connection and style. This article reads like an essay written for an examination: it contains plenty of good info, but written in a way which makes for "information overload". How many will like this if they know nothing about Singapore? Look at Para 3 of the lead. Everything is crammed in without any tying theme. I don't know who did this but it reads like an answer by a GCE 'A' Level candidate. Possibly he/she will score well for Geography, but for an encyclopedia, we are trying as far as possible to move away from the overly technical. Ironically this seems like a typical Singaporean work: highly efficent, but totally devoid of any grace or style. Look at what was there 1 year ago and the prose is considerably more relaxed and inviting. Mandel 08:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - When I wrote that I did have a tying theme - ie. steps taken after independence, what Singapore did to develop. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well written article with lots of references and links. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The media section and human rights sections are not a necessity as per Wikipedia:WikiProject countries. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment make stubs or remove the two redlinks and i'll vote YAY! :) - FrancisTyers 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. One of the red link is Baweans, the people of Bawean Island in Java Sea, where many Malays in Singapore originated from during the 19th century [1]. I learned something today :D --Vsion 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what should we do with the four bolded votes by Neutrality, can we strike out the extra votes? --Vsion 19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Weak Object (for now) 1)Still has red links, create them first. 2) Not need to have a separate section for national symbols; most other featured country pages have them as a template, which should also reduce space requirements (if placed on the right). 3)The culture section is too big, should be reduced by 40%, the images of water taxi or Trishaw should go to Transport section. Please make these corrections. Thanks. --Ragib 20:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More comments: The header section has top much wikilinking. There is frankly no reason to wikilink words like "port", "Empires", "Export", "Manufacturing", "Electronics", "housing estates", "controversy", etc. Similarly, throughout the rest of the article, too many words are redundantly and needlessly wikilinked. This makes reading the article difficult, because almost every sentence has some wikilinked word like "island", "urban", "fresh water", "humidity", "recession", "armed forces", "Metro". Amazingly, the article wikilinks the word "Ticket"!!! All these redudnant wikilinks need to be removed before I can support this FA. Thanks. --Ragib 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The water taxi and trishaw is part of cultural heritage — they are not a vital part of Singapore's transport system. It is an industry that caters to tourists (although I did take a ride in it as part of National Education). As National Education is a government programme meant to teach culture and heritage (and history), I don't think it should be moved. Can you amend your objections please.

As for excessive wikilinking, I disagree. Having lots of blue links I think is the style of the wiki (makes it prettier, in fact) - no one complains on WP:ITN. Since people of all ages, all backgrounds, or who have English as a second language are bound to read this, (for example when I go to the French Wikipedia I am glad they link relatively simple words), I don't think it detracts from "featured" criteria. Economic recession is a concept that is not always obvious in terms of definition and should stay linked; neither is "housing estate" - people who have stayed in private suburban housing all their lives might not have a clue what a housing estate entails - humidity is a scientific concept and deserves to be linked; so some of the links you mentioned that are so called "needless" do have some need. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with the first issue of trishaws being part of the culture. But I totally disagree with the assertion that we need to wikilink everything ... I do not at all see why the following words need wikilinking: "Export", "Manufacturing", "Electronics", "controversy", "island", "urban", "fresh water", "humidity", "recession", "armed forces", "Metro". Otherwise, We will need to link every word, which is not at at all a good idea. I would like to see these excessive, redundant wikilinks removed before this article gets up to FA status. Please fix that. Thanks. --Ragib 00:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is an inappropriate analogy. We are not linking "every word", we are linking "concepts". Links to concepts like "housing estate" helps assert a greater concept, in this case, the city-state of Singapore and its urban planning policy. For example, the majority of the population being housed in HDB housing estates, and a housing estate being a non-trivial concept, that should be linked. Armed forces is also a rather major concept, and should also be linked. Will the majority of readers need to click on it? Not necessarily, and neither for many other links. However, what "armed forces" entails is also distinctive, because of the nature of "total defence" — not all elements of the defence are armed. Note that "Singapore" is a very general article about a country, and that general articles might have links that can be perceived as trivial. Should we delink "atom" from some science articles because nearly everybody knows what it is? Some people have never been on a metro. Some people just happen not to know the difference between a rail system and a metro system (sum of human knowledge for all people in the English language). Some other concepts may be de-linked, but I only think half of what you listed should. Again, I don't think that having a line almost entirely in blue detracts from aesthetics either. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some items in Ragib's list are addressed. The red links are removed, and the =symbols= section transfered. The =culture= section is difficult to condense further, its current form is a result of combining several sections that existed previously include language, religion, architecture. I feel it is necessary for sections of History and Culture to be longer than other sections because of their importance and coverage. The appropriate density of wikilinks is a subjective judgement and I hope more leeway on this be given to the writers. Nonetheless, many wikilinks have been removed in the last few days. --Vsion 06:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the corrections/modifications. I still think the article has too many unnecessary wikilinks, unlike other country pages (see the FAs India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.). Thanks. --Ragib 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that serious as to warrant an objection? I think it would be better to link than not to link, as long as they are not frivolous like dates. Controversy can be unlinked, but I do not think armed forces should be unlinked as it is part of what defines the scope. Besides, the aesthetics is rather subjective — I for one like the blue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to nitpick, but wikilinking words like "island", "urban", "fresh water", "humidity", "recession", "ticket" does seem redundant. I changed my vote to weak objection as the other issues seem to have been resolved. Again, I don't see any justification of wikilinking these words. Thanks. --Ragib 05:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well "recession" is a rigourously defined term, as is humidity. I think any rigourously defined concepts should be linked, even if they seem trivial. Non-rigourous concepts can be unlinked, but I also note the Water resources article has detail, so the explanation of a concept (water resource issues) deserves to be linked as this is something that people can find out more about why Singapore is in a particular situation. (These terms though seemingly trivial can turn up in a six point question in geography examination in a specialised context so hence my apprehension to delink them.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, I think there're too many wikilinks. Excessive linking makes for headache reading, and I have a serious headache just looking at this article. Well, don't protest too much - this is just my honest opinion. Mandel 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the wikilinks and removed some that are irrelevant and duplicated. The remaining ones are relevant to some degree. It makes sense that in the Geography section, there are links to topics such as "fresh water", "humidity" etc. Similarly, in Education section, there are links to general topics such as primary education, secondary education, etc. These are just tools to facilitate readers to navigate through these article quickly. I understand that it is very subjective, and some wikipedia's "norms" are puzzling to me such as wikifying dates, which I hardly use and the date-articles aren't particularly useful. As for causing headache, I would suggest changing the user setting so that the links are not underlined so that they are less distracting, or just simply increase the display font size which will help tremendously. --Vsion 14:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks slightly better, but I'd like to reiterate: when a wikilink is linked once already, you need not link it a second time. It's still overdone. In the lead, there's no need to link port, empires, fishing, village, occupied (occupied by Japanese empire should be linked), its port, environmental, controversy. Otherwise you might as well do it for every word. I will delink them, see whether it's acceptable. Mandel 18:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted most of the changes but I relinked several terms which I feel are very useful in explaining Singapore's situation (things like entrepot and value added, given that Singapore has no natural resources) ... Port of Singapore should be linked, and headscarf, as it is really a ban on the tudung. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think some relinks are unnecessary eg. port, exports, humidity etc. These are very generic terms which a dictionary definition would suffice for understanding the article. Also, "entrepot" seems to have been wikilinked a number of times. Like I say, you can actually wikilink almost every term in the article, but the trick is to do it judiciously. Mandel 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Greatly informative and detailed article that covers many facets of Singapore. Deserves featured status Ivirivi00 23:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: This FAC seems to be archived, it doesn't appear in the main FAC page anymore. Is that by mistake, or has a decision been reached for it? Thanks. --Ragib 20:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]