Talk:Glenn Knight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Glenn Knight has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 22, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
October 1, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 27, 2007.
Current status: Good article

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Verify : Cite areas with references where needed
  • Other : Article needs a fair use image of the person depicted

GA nomination on hold[edit]

The main reason for this is because there are a lot of red links. It's minor, but they should either be removed, or articles created.

Also, the phrase: "While he was Director of the CAD, Knight was living in a bungalow in East Coast that was financed by mortgage. After his conviction he could no longer pay for the bungalow and had to move to a much smaller HDB flat in Toa Payoh, and later to one in Telok Blangah" seems to be irrelevant, although I may be wrong. Hanuab 05:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph. As an afterthought, when newspapers do interviews they may be tempted to probe into the minutest details of their interviewees' lives, and I think this is an example. I will make stubs of the red links in 1-2 days. Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-09 14:54Z
OK, all redlinks have been removed or made redirects/articles. Resurgent insurgent 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Talkheader[edit]

I added the talkheader template above so the page could be talked over and fixed up to become a good article example. Cheers! ~I'm anonymous

But there's no TOC for this page yet, if your preferences are set at default, since there aren't three topic headings on this page yet. I'll shrink the WikiProject banners and see if that helps. Resurgent insurgent 14:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't help, so I reverted. You seem to be very familiar with Glenn Knight, can you upload an image for the article? If you like, I can place the copyright and fair use confirmation for the image. Earlier, I googled through images for "Glenn Knight", though was unsuccessful in finding a decent one (can't tell what this person looks like, sorry!) ;) Cheers. ~I'm anonymous
I've seen a couple of recent pictures of him - in The Straits Times. However, I'm not able to take a picture of him in person as he's currently semi-public. He's not living in Singapore (where I am), according to a very recent report. Resurgent insurgent 14:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
He's not seen in google pictures either? ~I'm anonymous

You can't use images found on google as they are copyrighted. Fair use rationales for copyrighted images of living persons are not allowed for use on wikipedia as it is possible to replace with a free image. LaraLoveT/C 06:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all images from Google are copyrighted. The search can pick out images from websites which release images under free licenses as well. However, there are relatively less such sites. As for Knight, he really hasn't been photographed much because he's been away from the public eye for more than 10 years. Resurgent insurgent 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
These days, I find it virtually impossible to make fair use of photographs of people in Wikipedia, living or dead. Non-free photographs of living people are generally disallowed because it is usually regarded as possible to rephotograph the person and thus produce a free photograph of him or her (unless he or she is some famous recluse). And recently I've had some problem over a photograph of a person who is deceased, because I was unable to state the name of the copyright owner of the photograph. It seems that without knowing the identity of the copyright owner, it is not possible to judge whether the use is fair or not. For instance, if the copyright owner is a photo agency, then the use of the photograph may not be fair because the owner derives an income from the sale of the photograph. Thus, it seems that photographs of living or deceased persons are only usable on Wikipedia in the following circumstances: (1) where the photograph is so old that copyright in it has expired; (2) where the photograph is submitted to Wikipedia under a free licence; or (3) where the subject of the photograph is so reclusive that it is virtually impossible to take a photograph of him or her (e.g., Osama bin Laden). Anyway, best of luck for your search for an image. Cheers, Jacklee 10:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
From my understanding, if the person is dead and their photo is available on the net (like 2Pac's) then there could still be a possible copyright problem? What if the original photo copyright says: "All Rights Reserved"... doesn't that mean that it is automatically free to use? See also: Carole Weatherford. ~I'm anonymous
Well, that was my point. Wikipedia administrators are now quite strict about the use of photographs of people, even if they are deceased. Copyright does not cease simply because the subject of the photograph dies, because the copyright is generally owned by the person who took the photograph or his or her employer. Therefore, unless the photograph is so old that the copyright has expired, the photograph will still be copyrighted and not available for use unless some valid fair use justification is established. "All rights reserved" means that the copyright owner is asserting his or her copyright and other rights over the photograph – it certainly does not mean that the photograph is free for use! Cheers, Jacklee 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination[edit]

Overall the article looks pretty good, but I think a couple small things need fixed before marking it GA.

  • Punctuation should be inside of quotation marks. For example, ...missile", as... should be ...missile," as... There are a couple places like that in the article that need fixed. The article also needs reviewed for typos (look for words improperly spelled in the following ways: favour, practise, totalling, defence and practising). Once those things are done I'd advance it to GA and give a couple recommendations that I feel would make it better. Theophilus75 04:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • With respect, I don't think these are aspects of the article that need fixing. First, I think the placement of commas outside quotation marks when they do not form part of the quotation is correct according to British convention which is used in Singapore, unless what is being expressed is a break in reported speech:
"I'm of the view," he said, "it is fine to use British spelling conventions in the article."
Secondly, the words favour, practise, totalling and defence are not typos; this is how they are spelled in British English. Since this article is about a Singaporean, I think it is perfectly acceptable for British spelling conventions to be used: see "Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English". Practising is correct according to both British and US spelling conventions – there is no such word as practicing. Cheers, Jacklee 11:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have tracked down all the commas that followed closing quotation marks and put them in their proper places. However, as Jack said, the words you mention are legitimate British English spellings. Resurgent insurgent 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I could find no difference in how puncuation is supposed to be applied between US & British English context, so I would say that does need to be corrected (and it has been). As for the words you mentioned, I was aware of flavour but not the other words...and after looking them up I see you are correct...so I will stand corrected on those points. I've since reviewed the article again (with the changes as of this point), and feel that the article does qualify for GA status and will be making appropriate notations forthwith. Theophilus75 14:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Skiptotoctalk & Talkheader[edit]

I moved them up to the top. If one wanted to browse quickly down instead of scrolling, Skiptotoctalk should be on top for "instant clickability", targeting to the table of contents. The talkheader should come second since it has the links to Wikipedia policies. Lord Sesshomaru

GA review — kept[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 10:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I think it's a little short; the body's all good and while it's not terribly long the lead is quite the converse. E.g., it says nothing about his early career, and gives not much hint of his much touted ability as a lawyer, which is expounded in the body. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)