Talk:Singapore

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Singapore/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article appears stable. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Article appears to appropriately use sources - there is no obvious evidence of original research. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Appears to be factual and neutral. Any unusual claims, such as "The Singaporean military is arguably the most technologically advanced in Southeast Asia" are backed up by reliable sources - though some, such as this one, using a source from 2010, may need updating. SilkTork (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Images are all appropriately tagged and usable. SilkTork (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Query

• There is an appropriate reference section, but there are a number of Harv errors indicated. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• There are a lot of images creating image clutter, and sometimes squeezing text between images - see MOS:IMAGES for guidelines omn use and placement of images. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • SilkTork what's your browser's max width? I want to emulate to see how the clutter looks like to you. robertsky (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky My browser size is 1280 x 657. This MOS:SANDWICHING happens in a number of places, such as Merger with Malaysia, Foreign relations, Military, and Culture. SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork thanks. will check on this again. It will definitely be different from my current 1920 x 1080. robertsky (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• A number of images have long captions, the content of which would be better used in the main body. See WP:CAPTION. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Prose works, but tends to journalese, informality, and could be more concise. There tends, such as the opening sentences, to be an accumulation of detail crudely presented which is not inviting to read, and is therefore counter-productive in conveying the information. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• On a quick look, the major aspects appear to be covered, though more research would need to be done. SilkTork (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have in mind any specific area which requires reasearch? 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

1.02 editor - the research I mean is me doing some background reading on the topic. This is what I do for all GA reviews. It's my standard approach. If you wish to help out on that, that would be useful. I'll look at other encyclopedia entries on SIngapore. Put "Singapore" in to Google and see what comes up, including news items. And sometimes get a book or two out of the library. The amount of research depends on the complexity and importance of the topic. SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• While there is no section that appears obviously excesses, some sections appear to be disproportionately larger than others - such as Water supply and sanitation containing more information than Tourism. SilkTork (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• References to Singapore Statutes need to be checked as the URL structure for AGO's Singapore Statutes Online was changed sometime 2-3 years ago. If possible, make use of {{Singapore legislation}} to ensure that the links stay updated. robertsky (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky Would you be able to do that? SilkTork (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork yup. working on that, but putting here so that if anyone else wants to edit, they can do it too. robertsky (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Any updates? Feinoa (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of this, but the Proposed Decisions have been posted in the Fram ArbCom case, just when my personal life is also somewhat unexpectedly busy, so I'm putting that as the priority at the moment. But I will get back to this as soon as possible. SilkTork (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem! Feinoa (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Putting stability under a query as the article had to be fully protected, and was only unprotected a few days ago. SilkTork (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Cite needed tags have been dealt with, though I had to add a new one. I'll check out sources as I read through the article. SilkTork (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Density and presentation of image media is still a problem. Because of the size of the sections, unless there is a compelling reason for more, I suggest selecting just one image; and, to give a tidy appearance, to place that image on the right side of the article - at the top of the section if possible, otherwise close to the text to which the image refers, unless that means the image is so close to the bottom of the section that it spills over into the next section. I have collapsed the weather box as that is media rich and distracting, yet not everyone requ that information. Collapsing the box is not a GA requirement, so it can be reversed if this is considered inappropriate. SilkTork (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork I have noticed that some articles sidestep the text-squeeze and section-overflow issue by using galleries and montages, like India. And we do have a gallery here to highlighreligious diversity - in some areas and roads on the island, we have all three in close proximity. Shiok (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Galleries can be contentious, and while not explicitly forbidden, are not quite encouragp either: WP:GALLERY. WP:Layout, which is part of the GA criteria, does have MOS:LAYIM which says "you can use a gallery", so that would be a way forward for those sections which would benefit from having several images, but where there is insufficient space. Other than the religious section, where I feel the present gallery works effectively, which sections do you feel would benefit from a gallery? SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I would highly discourage the use of any gallery in an overview article as it brings unbalance to section and breaks format as per WP:GALLERY and WP:UNDUE. What in meant by format change....is that in mobile view the images would not be seen till section end....that would be different from all other sections...in desk to view it may cause the whole article to need the use of sidescroll for some people MOS:ACCIM. The norm in country articles is not to have stand-alone galleries.... instead images associated with the text are placed adjacent to the text as per Mos recommendations. Examples to follow are Canada, Australia and Chad. Japan has a few buildings as per a long talk based on the fact a chart would have been meaningless. As for the format at India it is a current change that is being debated with the main concern being mini size images that are not accessible and do not meet the threshold size for visibility for all. Would be hard pressed to fine a gallery in watched over country articles. As for the gallery section here....in my view....religion is not represented well by architecture.--Moxy 🍁 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Religion is the main section I am concern about for a gallery and not thought of others. I am glad you think the present gallery works effectively. The most relevant part of WP:Gallery to me is this: "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images..". Social harmony is important in Singapore, so these images together in a small gallery will reinforce that message. Some readers may not even know how a Buddhist temple and Islamic mosque looks like and these will help. The section text is short and I do not see much difference when it appears at the end of the section on mobiles.

Concerning India's feature article I mentioned, it is due to appear just next week (Oct 2). There is no current debate about its montage image format on their talk page at all. SilkTork, are you more or less finished with the body text? Shiok (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I've not yet had a chance to sit down with the revised article, read it thoroughly and compare it with specific and general sources. I hope to do that over the next few days now my schedule is a bit freer on Wikipedia, though I am still a little stretched in real life. Like you I was a little surprised that India is to appear as a featured article considering its poor state - the appearance alerts one to the possibility the article is similarly messy, and it is. The lead fails to appropriately summarise the contents of the article, spending most of its time on history, trying to cram everything else about India in a small paragraph. There is nothing in the lead about agriculture, indeed, very little in the article itself, despite agriculture employing half of India's workforce - there is more about agriculture in an image caption that there in the main body of the article. There is nothing about incense. There is nothing about tourism. There are mistakes early on - the lead sentence of the second paragraph says: "Modern humans arrived on the Indian subcontinent from Africa no later than 55,000 years ago" - though humans had likely been arriving in India from 70,000 years ago or more. The "no later than" phrase is unclear, usually indicating a point in the future rather than one in the past, and "from Africa" is also unclear, and not needed anyway for a sentence in the lead. The overlarge, coloured, and over-captioned images are squeezing text and pushing into following sections. There are too many tertiary sources. There are a number of broken or unused cites. I've only glanced at it, and I don't see it as being of GA standard in its current state, let alone FA. However, that is not my concern. I do not have the time to get involved in that. I wish instead to focus on this GA, and help you folks bring this article to an acceptable standard. The appearance is a quick and easy aspect of that. A tidy, uncluttered and professional appearance is important in both encouraging people to read and reassuring them that the textual content will be similarly well organised and tidy. SilkTork (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That sounds insightful, hopefully they can make some corrections. I had drafted the following response earlier for comments above, but will post it here since you are the reviewer.

I do not see the 20 buildings mentioned, unless we count those with even a hint of one structure in the background. Cities are mainly built-up areas and Singapore island especially is almost all urban with the exception of the surrounding islands, so some images with them are difficult to avoid. The stand-alone buildings are:

* a 3-photo montage of the city skyline - Economy

* Istana - Government

* SAFTI Military Institute - Defense

* Ministry of Communications, in charge of IT, media, arts - Infrastructure

* SMU University - Education

* NUH Hospital - Healthcare

* National Gallery - Arts

* Jewel Changi - Tourism

Of these, the 3-photo skyline montage was already reduced from a 7-photo montage someone posted, if need be could be reduced to just one. A few can possibly be replaced, like NUH hospital, Ministry of Communications, university, but may be hard-pressed to find another representation for those sections.

The religious gallery are buildings course, but many will see them as places of worship and religion, not regular office buildings. I am certainly not ignoring MOS, but it does provide for exceptions and hopefully acceptable here. There is always a chance the recent events may recur, maybe just to hinder the review, so I hope you will not be deterred. Shiok (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your free to ignorer the MOS and other recommendations but most will see an unbalanced ...to our readers the most important aspect of the article will be buildings. Not people or culture but buildings as there are 20 of them in the article...sure we need 3 more in a gallery? .."Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article". I dont see how segregation of buildings represents "Social harmony" in fact it shows the opposite. --Moxy 🍁 11:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Tourism section - (copied from talk) it would be good to fix the tourism section first. It reads like an assortment of random facts and describes some specific tourist attractions, instead of tourism in general. Some of the information that could be expected from a tourism section are (1) contribution of tourism to employment/economy, (2) major steps taken to promote tourism (Ministry of Tourism and Merlion) (3) reasons why tourists visit (central location, good air connectivity, duty free shopping) (4) major tourist profile (China, India, ASEAN) and (5) briefly list important tourist attractions.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Fail

• Has a number of citation needed tags, including from November 2016. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Tags have been dealt with. I'll continue working on the review. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• This appears on first glance to be a quick fail due to there being a number of citation needed tags, some dating from November 2016; also the presentation is very untidy with too much media. However, the article is reasonably readable, and appears to be organised and detailed, so there is the possibility that this could be turned into a Good Article with a decent and committed scrub up. I'll continue to make some quick observations. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Currently, the article isn't stable due to edit warring, so quick fail for now. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 12:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Every day, two new restaurants open in Singapore." This is sloppy journalistic writing. The data on which this tidbit comes from is seven years old, and is based on an annual figure so giving just the media headline is inaccurate and misleading. Do two restaurants open every day? No, of course not. The source says 686 restaurants opened in 2012, so two a day is just an average. However, the source also says 537 closed, so the total number of new restaurants is 149. That in itself is an impressive figure so it doesn't need to be artificially pumped up. However, as the data is seven years old, it would be more appropriate to get a recent number, and one which looked at an overall trend, not just a single year. SilkTork (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

On hold

I haven't given the article an in-depth review, but I think there is potential here for this article to be made into a Good Article. However, before an in-depth review can be conducted, the obvious problems of the "citation needed" tags, and the image clutter need to be addressed. So I am putting this on hold for seven days for those matters to be dealt with before continuing the review. If the citation and image issues are addressed within seven days I will complete the review to see what else needs doing. SilkTork (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps best to fail and start again once the problems below are delt with. We clearly have some problems that can't be solved without intervention despite what the majority is saying.--Moxy 🍁 20:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for delay - the Fram case took up a lot of my time and energy. Now it is over I'll take a look again at this article. I recall when I first looked that it appeared to be a quick fail, but that beneath the off-putting appearance there appeared to be a reasonably solid article that could be worked into shape. I am aware that in the month since I put this on hold that the article has had as many edits as it has had in the previous 12 months, and that some edit warring took place. Such instability is also grounds for quick fail, but if we can look into the reason for that, and deal with it then hopefully it won't occur again. SilkTork (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am extending the hold for one month, after which I will look again and make a decision as to if the review can continue, or if there is too much instability. I will look again on or around Nov 5th. Please use the time to build the whole article rather than worrying about the lead. If the main body of the article is fine, the lead will; fall into place. The lead is always the last thing I look at as that is the area that is most likely to change during a review. SilkTork (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, I totally agree that it is important to fix the sections first. I was initially an observer, but I would be happy to actively contribute to this; though I am not sure if the timeline is adequate. Is there a fixed deadline for a GA review?--DreamLinker (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the reviewer. I am particularly patient, and am comfortable keeping a review open for months if need be. As long as progress is being made, and folks are still happy for the review to remain open I have no problems at all. This hold is because there is disagreement about the lead. You can work on the article, and safely ignore the lead. As with a number of other experienced GA reviewers, I leave serious consideration of the lead to the end, as the lead will likely change as the article itself develops during a review. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't trust you one bit. And you have avoided visiting the talk page and answering questions I posed to you for days, right at the page bottom.

"Third on Corruptions Perception Index" - these are your own rewrites, a claimed "consensus view" that is only by yourself. I do not see anyone coming in to support your vague deceptive summary. You know of course many readers who are new to the index may interpret it as the third most corrupt country. So your perverted refusal to acknowledge this vagueness in your next response will be reflective of other malicious content edits too. "

I suggest everyone watch all his edits carefully, not only on Singapore article.183.90.37.104 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@183.90.37.104: Please note that Silktork is currently reviewing the article for GA status and in many cases reviewers will be bold and make some changes where they deem necessary. Please also assume good faith in other editors unless they have been proven to be disruptive editors. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussions regarding general editing of the article and debate between editors is best done on the talkpage rather than here in the review. The statement " you have avoided visiting the talk page and answering questions I posed to you for days, right at the page bottom" is inaccurate as DreamLinker responded to every comment made by 183.90.37.104 apart from the last one. The tone of 183.90.37.104's language is hostile and insulting, and is not conducive to a positive collaborative atmosphere. SilkTork (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Copying this here as I want this to be a part of the GA review record:

I don't wish to get involved too much in the editorial decisions in building this article. Reviewers should remain neutral. What I will be looking for in the lead is an overview of Singapore, summarising the main points raised in the article, as per WP:Lead. There shouldn't be a statement in the lead that is not also in the main body (such as " classified as an Alpha+ global city"). There shouldn't be a section in the article that is not summarised in the lead. Working on the lead separately from the main body is not often the best way of doing things. Write the article. Make sure the article is fine, then use the main body of the article to create your lead.

What I will also be looking at is that there is broad coverage in the article - so there should be information on education and healthcare. Perceptions such as quality of life, and personal safety are additional pieces of information not always found in a GA article on settlements, and while they can and should be included if such perceptions are shown to be widely reported such that they are a common feature on discussions about the settlement, they are not required pieces of information. It is known as a major trading centre, so I would expect some mention of that in the main body, along with an explanation of why it is such a world leader, with a summary both of the fact and the reason in the lead. I would expect an indication in the article and so therefore in the lead of the government's control and influence on Singapore's financial development. I will also be looking that the article stays focussed, so a lot of detail or weight on a particular aspect I will question. I would, for example, question a paragraph that sets out to insist on Singapore's "influence" with a string of features, particularly when this assertion of influence is both uncited and not discussed (and it appears not even mentioned) in the main body. I will be looking out for examples of original research where statements are made which are not directly found in sources, but which are arrived at by editors' own interpretation of facts. The facts may be true. But if they are not explicitly stated in sources, then we should not be saying them. Do we have a source for Singapore's "influence on the global economy"? I will be looking at balance to ensure the article is neutral. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't expect to see a series of positive statements, but alert and inquiring readers may get concerned to read long sections of high praise without accompanying balance, such as concerns about falling GDP. Am I missing in the article information about the fall in GDP in Singapore: [1], [2], [3]? Is this information in the article and I'm not seeing it?

My suggestion to folks working to improve the article is to concentrate on getting the main body right first, then work on the lead. It's easier and more effective that way, and tends to be less confrontational as well! SilkTork (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing

I am closing this GAN as not listed. The article remains unstable, and so the review cannot continue. SilkTork (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

"Third on Corruptions Perception index" vs "third least-corrupt country"

So which do people think is easier to understand? 183.90.36.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I've edited it to hopefully make it more clear but saying it's the third least corrupt is activley misleading as it's based on a measure of percived corruption rather than an investigation of actual corruption. Unlike other metrics such as Life expectancy or GDP per capita,"Corruption" is hard to define and create a metric for because it's both hidden and hard to define with various border cases being different in different countries.Zubin12 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Better but still not ideal. I would still pause to take in that word combination using “lowest”. How about "third best country on Corruptions Perceptions Index".183.90.36.118 (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise there was a discussion here. I have changed it to "third on Corruption Perceptions Index". Zubin12 is correct about the fact that saying "third least corrupt" is misleading. However, since we already have an article on Corruption Perceptions Index, the easiest way to state this is to simply quote the rank and link to the index.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This point wasn't covered in my review. I would have this placed in the economy section of the body as well. robertsky (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"third on Corruption Perceptions Index" is as vague as the first version. You need to say "third best on Corruption Perceptions Index", people don't know whether a high or low rank equates to best/worst. Was it deliberate? 183.90.36.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't use expressions like "third best" or "third worse" since these represent an oversimplification of a much more nuanced ranking. Many rankings also cannot be classified into clear "best" or "worse" categories. If the ranking is available, we simply state the position and link to the ranking, letting the user figure this out themselves--DreamLinker (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Who is "We"? - it is you and your nuanced vague description. Almost every media describe it as least-corrupt because it is understandable to the layman. Perception is explained as the methodology of survey. You should take your nonsense to third party opinion or the grammar noticeboard and get feedback. Then we discuss your nuances again.183.90.36.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please be civil in your replies. Not every media describes it as "least corrupt" and Wikipedia is clearly supposed to favour accuracy over presenting inaccurate views simply because it is "understandable to the layman". You assertion is also not supported since most news sources actually state the ranking/score and index instead of putting qualifiers like "best" or "worst" [4], [5], [6], [7].--DreamLinker (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So who is "We". I said "least-corrupt" is normally used, not best/worst. Selected refs does nothing for your story if people don’t read the details. If you want to put a single line summary, it better not be vague. Just put up your "Third on Corruptions Perception Index" at a noticeboard if you think you are right. Then we meet there.183.90.36.118 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"We" is usually used in context of Wikipedia editors and I used it because what I said reflects the current consensus view. As for "people don’t read the details", that's your own perception. Anyway, if you want to use "least corrupt" please bring some references to show that it is widely used. Alternatively, we can simply remove it from the lead (which is probably best) and explain in one of the sections.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"Third on Corruptions Perception Index" - these are your own rewrites, a claimed "consensus view" that is only by yourself. I do not see anyone coming in to support your vague deceptive summary. You know of course many readers who are new to the index may interpret it as the third most corrupt country. So your perverted refusal to acknowledge this vagueness in your next response will be reflective of other malicious content edits too. -183.90.37.104 (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

DreamLinker - Still refusing to answer here. It affects your credibility, or are you more afraid of being called out? 183.90.36.137 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

IMF GDP data

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.

---

I know some of you can't read sources (seriously, PAP socks need better skills, I thought you were highly educated?), so I helpfully included a link to GDP per capita with IMF data from 2017 to 2024: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2019/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2017&ey=2024&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=60&pr1.y=11&c=137%2C516%2C453%2C576%2C178&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a= Singapore is not due to overtake Luxembourg until 2023 according to IMF estimates. Yny501 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You are already discussing on his talk page, there's no need to throw shades at everyone here. Did you think you can agitate us to edit-war at HK article as well? Good luck to your street protests la.183.90.37.104 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

When did I bring up the HK article? Calm down, you're the one who's accusing people of things they're not doing. How many warnings do you need before it's enough? Your attitude to this article is basically let's see how much I can get away with, and that's not my problem, unless you're just making blatantly false edits. Yny501 (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

God, Hongkongers truly are a sensitive bunch. Feinoa (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The above statement is almost as ironic as the purchasing patterns of Chinese consumers. Also, it's really not anyone else's problem if you happen to be illiterate, but the PAP should be spending less on their online security budget. Yny501 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

183.90.37.104, Feinoa, Yny501: Seriously, just stop comparing each other to things you don’t like. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 22:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother anyway. If you disagree with them, you will always be labeled as a shill. That's the only thing that they can come up with. Feinoa (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

Trying to understand what was the reason to change GDP to '2nd rank' in the first place? 183.90.36.137 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You can dig through the history of the page and pinpoint who's the one who inserted the line, check out the edit comment if you are interested. At this point, there's no point dredging this out as a discussion. Once again, WP:NOTFORUM. robertsky (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Education section

I was looking at the education section and I believe it needs an overhaul. Some information that should be included are

• Overview of the system - primary, secondary and tertiary institutions (this is somewhat adequately explained in the section). Examinations can be included here.
• Some information about educational policies such as the mother tongue requirement, government funding of schools, ministry for overlooking education. Additionally it would be good to include how much percentage of GDP is spent on education, particularly if that is a significant factor over the years.
• School enrolment rate or some statistics which can be explained in a sentence. It could be explained via a chart as well.
• Praise/Criticism - Currently the OECD PISA and TISS rankings are mentioned, but the statistics are for a single year which kind of makes it more like a news, rather than a summary. For this, a source which could summarise the performance over the years would be preferable. I found some though most are behind a pay-wall. I have removed the content about the (now discontinued) Angus Ross Prize as it is not a major benchmark used globally. Similarly for the IB scores, it is a one time news but not a benchmark as such. The section is also missing any criticism about ability based streaming or stress due to the education system (better reference than AFP news required though).

References

--DreamLinker (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

GAN closed as Not Listed

I've closed the GA review as the article remains unstable. Once there is stability on the article and main contributors feel that the article is ready, I'll be happy to review it. So you can ping me, rather than have it wait on the nominations list for ages. SilkTork (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019

Please decapitalize "Bumboats" and add a link to the bumboat article. 96.75.222.117 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

"The country is situated one degree (137 kilometres or 85 miles) north of the equator"

Part of the country is situated 137 kilometres or 85 miles north of the equator, but since it's 725 km2 in area and it's not a long and narrow line, most of the country isn't 137 km or 85 mi north. "One degree" is approximate of course, unlike the km/mi distance. Could you just remove the km/mi figures? The coordinates appear elsewhere, like in the infobox, but the km/mi doesn't appear anywhere else, so it shouldn't be in the introduction anyway. 2601:5C6:8080:100:8950:4BE9:11F3:586F (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Partially done. I've changed "one degree" to "about one degree", in recognition of it not occupying a just thin line. I've left the km/mi note as being helpful to those readers who don't know how far 1° is on Earth. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

There have been a lot of improvements, but still some issues with verifiability including missing citations and books without page numbers (e.g. Savage, Victor R.; Yeoh, Brenda S.A. (2004). Toponymics: A Study of Singapore's Street Names. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.; Khun Eng Kuah (2009). State, society, and religious engineering: toward a reformist Buddhism in Singapore; Ammon, Ulrich; Dittmar, Norbert; Mattheier, Klaus J. (2006). Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society; Singapore, Curriculum Planning & Development Division (2015). Singapore : the making of a nation-state 1300–1975.; Lee Tong Soon (2008). "Singapore".; Kong, Lily (2007). Singapore Hawker Centres : People, Places, Food. Singapore: SNP). Without page numbers it is very difficult to find the information failing WP:V. buidhe 03:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2020

20 January 2020

Palak Baid (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Singapore/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Armanaziz (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The article seems to be in pretty good shape - only a few areas need improvement. I'll try to highlight the weak areas one by one so that someone can work on them.

• My first observation is - the last paragraph of the section 2.6 Republic of Singapore needs copy-edit. Also the last sentence has a citation required tag.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• There is another citation required tag in the first paragraph of the section Geography.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of the Transports section has some outdated data which need to be updated.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Another citation required tag in the Arts section.
  •  Done Feinoa (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Please address these. Arman (Talk) 12:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

While the citation situation is now fixed, the copy-edit concern for section 2.6 has not been addressed adequately. For example:

• "Lee Hsien Loong's tenure included the 2008 global financial crisis, the resolution of a dispute over Malayan railways land, and the introduction of integrated resorts." - this sentence needs to be rewritten and possibly broken down to be meaningful to a reader who is not familiar with the last two issues.
• "On 23 March 2015, Lee Kuan Yew died, declaring a one-week period of public mourning." - sounds like Lee Kuan Yew himself declared the public mourning.

Arman ^(Talk) 13:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've made some changes, hopefully it's better now. Feinoa (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• • The concerns from the earlier review now seem to be addressed. The coverage has increased, referencing improved and the article seems reasonably stable. Based on my assessment I am promoting this article. Arman ^(Talk) 06:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Further comments

@Armanaziz: I appreciate that you tried to review this article. However, I don't believe this article satisfies the criteria for a good article. If you notice the previous comments in GA review 3, there were multiple issues which have not been addressed. Many sections require copy editing. Some information in the lead is not there in the body. There is a lot of undue information as well it has issues with balancing information (mundane factoids are given greater province than encyclopedic information).--DreamLinker (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@DreamLinker:, fair points. You seem to have a more stringent standard for GA in mind than I do, and frankly I am rather new at GA assessment. So please feel free to nominate the article for GA reassessment and highlight your specific concerns so that the editors can work on them. I'd be happy to contribute in any way beneficial.-- Arman ^(Talk) 04:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Need to include one Pew Research which says Singapore has "highest religious diversity"?

Highest religious diversity

@Feinoa: I am not sure why we need to include this pew research study as you are including here [8]. I have already stated that Singapore is culturally and religiously diverse and there are multiple sources mentioning this. As for this Pew Research which measures "religious diversity", this is the methodology

This study, however, takes a relatively straightforward approach to religious diversity. It looks at the percentage of each country’s population that belongs to eight major religious groups, as of 2010. The closer a country comes to having equal shares of the eight groups, the higher its score on a 10-point Religious Diversity Index.

This is a pointless index to include.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC) I also don't see a need to include in the lead where it is redundant. I understand that you feel the article is "dull" but that is how most encyclopaedic articles are, factual, summary style and to the point. It differs from a description on a tourist website where trivia might be included. You can check the lead of India which has been a featured article for a long time. India is linguistically diverse but there is no mention of Linguistic diversity index.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to chime in that I disagree on the removal of the prominent landmarks of the city, even as I had removed several not so internationally famous ones. A quick look at Beijng, London and New York City shows that all three articles showcased their respective prominent attractions in the leading paragraphs. Since Singapore is a city and a country, I do not see a problem with mentioning them.

With regards to the "highest" religious diversity, I think we can limit it to "has one of the highest religious diversity in the world" and cite the PEW article without mentioning it in the article itself.Seloloving (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Actually the reason for removing landmarks is because it is very hard to find reliable secondary sources which agree that these are prominent landmarks. Sources also disagree about which landmarks are "prominent". I have gone though quite a number of sources and I am unable to find one which terms these are prominent. The city articles you quoted are not really featured articles which are supposed to reflect the best quality on Wikipedia. Instead of "landmarks" what could be perhaps included is prominent tourist attractions. It can be added on to the details about economy.

As for "highest religious diversity" the problem is precisely with using the term "highest religious diversity" in Wikipedia Voice. This is also different from general usage which favours "religious diversity" or "lack of religious diversity". Using a superlative isn't useful here.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Are the tags seriously necessary? What exactly is the dispute here really? No one seemed to have had an issue with the original lead except for you. I don't understand why you hadn't brought up your concerns during the GA review. I hate edit warring as much as everyone, we know how it had ended last time. You also seem particularly focused on articles that I edit. I honestly can not comprehend what your intentions are here. Feinoa (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the tags are necessary because it shows a problem with the article and other editors can chime in. The point is to get consensus and silence is not consensus. I believe other editors have had issues with the lead and this solicits feedback. As for the GA review I didn't even know it was going on. If I knew I would have provided feedback. Usually a good practice is to post in the relevant WikiProjects to get comments. I am simply trying to edit articles and improve the quality. Wikipedia is a collaborative project where we collaborate, discuss and improve articles.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Feinoa: I would appreciate if you could self revert and restore the tags. I believe it would be good if you follow the advice given by an administrator here.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten it. Feinoa (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Including landmarks

@DreamLinker In my opinion, just because the pages aren't featured articles does not mean one can attribute that lack of certification due to the inclusion of famous landmarks within the lead section, there could be other criteria preventing it from getting FA status. I had listed the 3 as an example befitting their status as world famous major cities with a disproportionate amount of influence in international affairs, both culturally and economically. Looking at several cities with FA status, I cite Istanbul and Minneapolis - both articles too mention their famous landmarks within the lead section (lacking a source too), albeit limited to the more notable ones. I would support restoring the sentence to feature only Marina Bay Sands, Jewel Changi Airport and the UNESCO recognized Botanic Gardens. Seloloving (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Seloloving: Do you specifically mean "landmarks" or are you referring to "tourist attractions"? As I mentioned earlier, I support adding some major tourist attractions to the lead (good quality citations, such as journal articles can be found for these easily) and also information about tourist arrivals. The Istanbul article you mentioned is actually mentioning 3 important tourist attractions. Minneapolis is mentioning the places in the context of places significant for arts. I also checked Hyderabad which means the famous Charminar monument in the context of historical buildings. Canberra mentions many buildings which are of national significance politically. Ultimately, all of them have a criteria or context and they generally mention 2 or 3 only. In case of Singapore, this should probably be tourist attractions.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@DreamLinker I wouldn't separate them into landmarks or tourist attractions as both are one of the same - they attract people to visit, whether domestically or foreign, and as such count as a landmark which is heavily advertised for tourism purposes. It's pretty undeniable that for Changi Airport and Marina Bay Sands, the former is a famous transit point and the latter an integral part of the skyline of Singapore. Most of the articles cited do list UNCESO heritage sites, so the Botanic Gardens should not have been omitted either way. Seloloving (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The point here is that we require citations and we also need to use due weight. If we add some particular places to the lead, there has to be some criterion. The UNSECO world heritage sites in Istanbul are the biggest tourist attraction, hence the mention (it is also mentioned in the context of tourism). The problem with a list which includes Jewel Changi Airport, Gardens by the Bay and Singapore Botanic Gardens is that the selection criteria is arbitrary. I can find multiple research papers dating as far back to the mid 1990s which mention Sentosa and Orchard as major tourist attractions. More recently Marina Bay Sands is also stated as a major attraction. However, I am unable find such citations for Singapore Botanic Gardens and Jewel Changi Airport.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not opposed to a mention of Singapore Botanic Gardens the lead. However, I am opposed to lumping it with the major tourist attractions. Let me see if I can add it from an environment/cultural perspective.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Seloloving I have added Singapore Botanic Gardens to the lead, but not included in the list of tourist attractions. As for Jewel Changi Airport I cannot find any mention that it is a major tourist attraction. I would oppose including it.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I will compromise on that. Seloloving (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

LEAD section dispute

@Feinoa - that's not why someone should revert a contribution by another editor. There's no such thing as a stable version if the preceding edit wasn't a case of vandalism. If @DreamLinker had made a mistake with regards to the Marina Bay Sands, you should correct it based on its merits or reverted the affecting sentence alone, not undo his entire edit completely. Otherwise, discuss the entire section in the Talkpage. The article does not belong to any one contributor, no matter how much they have written it or promoted it to Good Article status. Just because it has achieved GA/FA does not mean it has reached perfection and thereupon destined to remain static. Please undo your revert willingly and discuss the dispute here. Seloloving (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: How should the lead mention Singapore's religious diversity

How should the lead mention Singapore's religious diversity? (Link to previous discussion)

• A. Singapore's population is culturally and religiously diverse
• B. Singapore's population is culturally diverse and has one of the highest religious diversity in the world.
• C A 2014 study by Pew Research Center found that Singapore has the highest religious diversity of any country.
• D Any other suggestion

References

Please mention your preference in the survey section.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• A: The lead should summarize the body. Option A is short and to the point. One can expand on this in the body. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: It is sufficient on its own as a summary. robertsky (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• A: It's the best as a summary and easiest to understand. Zubin12 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

There is no need to make comparisons to other locations, that can be done in the body. Also comparing means that the lead would likely be updated more frequent than it should be, or result in conflicting edits when updated versions of the ranking appear and Singapore somehow drops in the rank, or when there are competing rankings with different criteria. robertsky (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with this. In addition, I also have some concerns about the index itself and it's simplistic criteria to determine religious diversity.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, a summary means that editors should be forced to update the body first, reexamine the lead if it requires update, not the other way round. Haha. Everyone has issues with every single index/ranking that is thrown in any article. Is there any other studies that we can use to determine religious diversity and reinforce the claim, or lackof? If not, there are only two ways to go about it, 1. maintain current inclusion. 2. remove claim. robertsky (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

My improvements to the lead text

I have completed a series of quick improvements to the lead text after being frankly appalled by the lack of historical accuracy (Singapore was never a "crown colony within the Straits Settlements"...), the absence of proper syntax in parts, and the vague nature of some statements made about Singapore's economy and history. I have outlined my changes below. Feel free to discuss these changes and suggest other improvements:

Previous text:

Although its history stretches back millennia, modern Singapore was founded in 1819 by Sir Stamford Raffles as a trading post of the British Empire. In 1867, the colonies in East Asia were reorganised and Singapore came under the direct control of the British Crown as a crown colony within the Straits Settlements. During the Second World War, Singapore was occupied by Japan in 1942 but returned to British control as a separate crown colony following Japan's surrender in 1945. Singapore gained self-governance from the British Empire in 1959 and joined Malaysia as a state along with Sabah and Sarawak in 1963, but separated two years later over ideological differences, becoming a fully sovereign state in 1965. After early years of turbulence and despite lacking natural resources and a hinterland, the nation rapidly developed to become one of the Four Asian Tigers based on external trade.

The city-state is home to 5.6 million residents, 39% of whom are foreign nationals, including permanent residents. There are four official languages of Singapore: English, Malay, Chinese, and Tamil. Singapore's population is culturally diverse and has one of the highest religious diversity in the world. Since independence, national policies in education, housing and politics are guided by multiracialism.

My edit:

Although its history stretches back millennia, modern Singapore, then part of the erstwhile Johor Sultanate, was founded in 1819 when Stamford Raffles, a British officer, established a trading post of the East India Company on the island. In 1826, the island and its islets were fully ceded by the Johor Sultanate, and Singapore was incorporated into the Straits Settlements, a group of East India Company holdings in the Malay peninsula. From 1830 to 1858, the Straits Settlements were administered as a Malayan subdivision of the East India Company's Bengal Presidency. Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Settlements were administered as part of the British Raj from 1858 to 1867 until Britain's colonial holdings in the Malay archipelago were separated from British India and reorganised in 1867, transferring the rule of the Straits Settlements from Calcutta to London, thus bringing the Straits Settlements under the direct control of the British Crown as a crown colony.

During the Second World War, Japan successfully invaded Singapore, resulting in an interregnum of British rule and a brief Japanese occupation from 1942 to 1945. Following Japan's surrender in 1945, Singapore was returned to British control as a separate crown colony in 1946. Following a period of agitation against British colonial rule, Singapore gained self-governance from the British Empire in 1959. In 1963, Singapore federated with the British Empire's holdings in the Malay peninsula, as well as with Sabah and Sarawak, to form the Federation of Malaysia, but after two tumultuous years as a constituent state of the Federation, Singapore seceded in 1965 to become a fully sovereign state. After early years of turbulence, and despite the country's absence of natural resources and a hinterland, the nation rapidly developed and industrialised, becoming a high-income economy and developed country within a single generation.

The city-state is home to 5.6 million residents, 39% of whom are foreign nationals, including permanent residents. There are four official languages of Singapore: English, Malay, Chinese, and Tamil, with Malay being accorded special status in Singapore's constitution as the country's national and ceremonial language. As a legacy of colonial rule, Singapore's citizen population is racially, culturally, and religiously diverse; since independence, the country's national policies in education, housing and politics have come to be defined by the state's guiding principle of multiracialism.

Tiger7253 (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the edits. The previous version was indeed lacking, and I could not put my finger on it until your rewrite. Although it may have expanded the lead a little, this summary has a better representation of the history of Singapore pre-Japan occupation. Hope this sticks! robertsky (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Robertsky I am also improving the first lead paragraph. Singapore is a littoral state that has been shaped by its maritime position and history, so it makes no sense to exclude a nod to its maritime position from a geographic description of the island. Here are my improvements:

Previous text:

Singapore (/ˈsɪŋ(ɡ)əpɔːr/ ), officially the Republic of Singapore, is a sovereign island city-state in Southeast Asia. The country is situated about one degree (137 kilometres or 85 miles) north of the equator, at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, with Indonesia's Riau Islands to the south and Peninsular Malaysia to the north. Singapore's territory consists of one main island along with 58 other islets. Since independence, extensive land reclamation has increased its total size by 23% (130 square kilometres or 50 square miles).

My edit:

Singapore (/ˈsɪŋ(ɡ)əpɔːr/ ), officially the Republic of Singapore, is a sovereign island city-state in Southeast Asia. The country's territory is composed of one main island and 58 other islets, the combined area of which has increased by 23% since the country's independence as a result of extensive land reclamation projects. Singapore is positioned about one degree (137 kilometres or 85 miles) north of the equator, and is situated off the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula and the southernmost tip of the mainland Asian continent. The island country shares its southern maritime border with Indonesia's Riau Islands and its northern, western, and eastern maritime borders with the Johor state of Peninsular Malaysia. It is geographically positioned within the confluence of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, being bounded by Malacca Strait to its west and the South China Sea to its east.

Tiger7253 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. The lead looks much better now, especially the additions to the history.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Revamped historical affiliations box

Old (left) // New (right) /// Tiger7253 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Historical affiliations	Period
Srivijaya	650–1377
Kingdom of Singapura	1299–1398
Malacca Sultanate	1400–1511
Johor Sultanate	1528–1819
Straits Settlements	1826–1942
Empire of Japan	1942–1945
British Military Administration	1945–1946
Colony of Singapore	1946–1963
State of Singapore	1963–1965
Republic of Singapore	1965–present

Historical affiliations	Settlement and Time Period
Srivijaya	Temasek 7th century–13th century c. 700 years
Kingdom of Singapura	Singapura 1299–1398 99 years
Malacca Sultanate	Singapura 1400–1511 111 years
Johor Sultanate	Singapura 1528–1819 291 years
	Singapore 1819–1824 5 years
East India Company	Singapore 1824–1826 2 years
	Singapore Straits Settlements British Malaya Bengal Presidency 1826–1858 32 years
British Raj	Singapore Straits Settlements British Malaya Bengal Presidency 1858–1867 9 years
British Empire	Straits Settlements 1868–1874 1874–1925 1925–1942 British Malaya 1867–1942 75 years
Empire of Japan	Syonan-to 1942–1945 3 years
British Empire	British Military Administration British Malaya 1945–1946 1 year
	Colony of Singapore 1946–1952 1952–1957 British Malaya 1946–1957 11 years
	Colony of Singapore 1957–1959 1959–1963 1957–1963 6 years
Malaysia	State of Singapore 1963–1965 2 years
Republic of Singapore	Singapore 1965–present 59 years ago–present
	Singapore in ASEAN 1967–present 57 years ago–present