Talk:Jewel Changi Airport/GA1

CLOSED

Review is being ended without a result since the new-to-Wikipedia reviewer was in over their head, and nomination is being put back into the nominations pool to await a new reviewer.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Breakjan (talk · contribs) 19:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comment[edit]

This review appears to have been done in a matter of minutes by an enthusiastic, brand-new Wikipedian in their third edit. As such, it is not surprising that a number of the criteria were not properly checked, and that the article turns out to need some work before it meets said criteria. I have reverted the premature passage and pointed out some of the issues to Breakjan on their talk page, though perhaps it might be best to try to find an experienced reviewer to continue from here. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just done with Breakjan's other review, Talk:Singaporeans/GA1 (their fifth edit), I am closing this review and putting the nomination back into the pool with the other GA nominations awaiting review, with no loss of seniority. In the meantime, I thought that it might be useful for nominator Feinoa to address some issues I noted in a quick look through the article, so there will be less for the eventual reviewer to find as regards fixes:

There are also some problems with Jewel Changi Airport. While it is more thoroughly sourced, much of the sourcing is future based: of restaurants that were announced as going to be opening in the future, rather than that the restaurants had actually opened and/or are currently doing business at the airport—not all announced or scheduled activity actually come to pass. There's also some problematic wording, notably in the Retail section (brands are not duplex stores, and "unique" is a "peacock" term that shouldn't be used), and inconsistent spelling ("meter" vs. "metre"), all of which should be flagged in a thorough review.

Thank you, and best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.