Talk:Bonny Hicks

Good article nomination

I think this has been transformed enough in the last few days that it could meet this criteria. I thus nominated it. The rating of "Start class" is no longer valid and the rating of "Low-importance" is I think clearly in error, e.g. the article excerpt,

Describing the consensus of Singaporean literary scholars in 1995, two years prior Hicks's death, Ismail S. Talib in The Journal of Commonwealth Literature stated of Excuse me, are you a Model?, "We have come to realize in retrospect that Hicks’s autobiographical account of her life as a model was a significant milestone in Singapore’s literary and cultural history".

CyberAnth 09:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so someone came along and adjudicated this as a "B Class" article. Fair enough. I thus withdrew the GA nom.

But let's get this article above that. I admit I came upon this article by force of circumstances. I did what I did to save it from deletion because I knew enough about Singaporean post-colonial literature to know that Hicks held an important place therein, and I had the basic skills to do research on anything or anyone.

I created a place where this article is in draft form in preparation for posting here and re-nomination for GA status. Go to User:CyberAnth/Bonny_Hicks_Draft. My experience is that a draft in user space is often a better way to work on an article...away from article space until it reaches a level of substantial improvement...and then it can be posted.

So please do come to User:CyberAnth/Bonny_Hicks_Draft to make your changes. I will as frequently as warranted post updates to the main article. User space provides a place for users to more freely improve articles, in my experience, because they can place notes right within the text that make it easier to communally edit. Try it and see. I will also monitor the article and incorporate changes into the draft as appropriate.

This article seriously needs some Singaporean editors. Please, do help.

One request I have is that non-English Singaporean language terms be placed in appropriate places, something for which I just do not have the skills (lest the typewriter).

Also, I am sure there are sources in non-English languages that could be cited, but I just have not got the skills to even read them lest cite them.

CyberAnth 12:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am the editor who re-evaluated the article as a B-class article. I don't know why the re-evaluation prompted your withdrawal of the GA nomination - I merely meant to acknowledge the vast improvement in the article (fantastic work on that, by the way) without being overly presumptuous by grading it A-class. Nonetheless, there are areas in which the article can be improved - it needs some restructuring, for one. Try {{Biography}} for an example of how the general structure of a biography should look.

I'm really busy in real life at the moment, but I'll help out with the article in a week or two once the year gets going and I have more time. Thanks again for your work on the article. -ryand 13:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have thought about this a while and do not think Hicks warrants a full fledged biography. I really do not see this article as a bio but more of an author profile that more than anything highlights her as an author. This is because her notoriety really only concerns her writings. See what I mean? CyberAnth 07:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Renominating as Good Article

I came across this article and it is very informative, with relevant images and a good references section. I do not agree with the B-class grading as I cannot see how the article is lacking in "references, balance of content, or an important section". The prose is quite interesting to read. Hence I believe this article is worthy of GA-class or A-class. Resurgent insurgent 09:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is generally good, but still needs some work. First, the prose needs more work. There are a number of sentences(some examples below) which are either gramatically incorrect, or very awkward. The prose needs to be improved for general readibility.

-Her legacy is understood as important within particularly Singaporean society.

-Hicks had also became a serious student

-She reported she had received one acceptance but was awaiting other possible acceptances before deciding where to attend

The article also needs more citations. There are a number of statements about public comments and statements that have been made that need to be cited. Particularily, there are a number of quotations that are not attributed. The quotations at least should be attributable, and if they are not, they should not be in the article to begin with.

Finally, I think the article could be substantially improved by adding some context. The article discusses how her writings were important contributions to philisophical writing, but these comments seem somewhat difficult to understand. In what way were her writings important to philisophical thought? Without sufficient context, those claims about her importance and impact seem more like biased bolstering of the subject of the article. That is not to say she is undeserving of these comments, just that it is difficult to tell from reading the article how important she really is.-Dekkanar 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

comment

Please include her dialect name, her survivors. I heard her family lives between Thomson and Katong. The Sentosa bit is definitely a government attempt to make Sentosa seem like an enclave of rich and famous to those unknowing outside Singapore when in fact, it was Pulau Blakang Mati...Island of the Dead! Who will buy those ugly Sentosa Bungalow when they may sink to join the dead? Hahaha! Didn't they watch 300, democracy always prevails! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.166.210 (talk • contribs)

Non-free content use

I'm afraid I've had to tag this article with {{non-free}}, as there seems to be very excessive use of non-free content. While I appreciate the need for a single identifying image of the article's subject, what the other images add to the article is unclear to me, and the rationales are unenlightening. While these issues remain, there's no way that this can pass a thorough GA review. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to your concerns, I have removed all images except the one in the infobox. --Hildanknight (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks- that does seem to be the best step forward. J Milburn (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Find something better to do than remove glaringly obviously important content that came only after a months-long search in conjunction with other Wikipedians. This wowman is long dead and nothing "more free" will be forthcoming, ever. 66.168.9.210 (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That something is irreplaceable is only one of the non-free content criteria- non-free images must meet all of the criteria. Your assertion that these images are "glaringly obviously important" doesn't hold much water, as they certainly aren't to me. I am removing the images again- if you want to engage in a discussion about these images (which is what you're going to have to do if you want to keep them in the article), you're going to have to explain what each image adds to the article, and why it is so important that that is added to the article. You can rest assured that this article will not pass GAC in the mean time if it has those images- it may even be quick-failed. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Brief Marriage Section

This paragraph needs clarification of where she moved from. Also needs the date she was married, how long it lasted, how old she was etc...Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Outstanding Article!

I don't know who wrote this article but it is fabulous in its biographical acumen and knowledge, and in its prose. I'm a visiting Asian post-colonial literature scholar. Someone writing here had to have known her in her inside circle. The framing of her life as one between traditionalist and globalized Singaporeans is the most proper narrative. At any rate, this article is far-and-above the quality I am used to per the average Wikipedia article. 172.58.206.129 (talk)