Talk:Hwa Chong Institution/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Thehistorian10 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

This is a comprehensive review of this Article's application to become a Good article. The article will be assessed faithfully in accordance with the Good Article Criteria. As part thereof, references to each relevant criterion will be made.

General overview[edit]

It should be firstly noted that - in general - if an article has been nominated for Good Article status, it is assumed that the article is entitled to be listed as such. This therefore means that I take the view that there is a presumption in favour of this Article's listing as a good article. This presumption, however, does not presuppose the final opinion, and the article will still be examined in accordance with the criteria. I must, however, express concern at the fact that this article is a nominee for good article status, yet is only classified as a "C-class" article. Whilst this grading does not influence this review in any way, it should be noted that the criteria will be applied more stringently, as the article has not obtained the highest classifcation possible, at which it would be presumed that the article has good-article qualities.

Standard of review[edit]

The reviewer must be convinced that the article has fulfilled all criteria - including subcriteria - in order to list an article as a good article. This principle will be adhered to. In the event the article fails one criterion, this means that the article will have failed the entire review. For fullness, however, the article will be assessed against the remaining criteria.

1. well written[edit]

The Rules[edit]

The Rules state the following: " (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation"

Findings[edit]

It is my finding that the article is unclear. There is the use of jargon in the article. This jargon - whilst relevant - is not defined in the article. Whilst the jargon is linked to other articles, the definitions of such jargon can only be found in those articles. This would prove ineffective for those readers who did not have the time to hunt through related articles to define a simple term in this one article.

Notwithstanding the above, there is no apparent violation of copyright law. The spelling and grammar are also correct.

Regarding the guidelines for the lead sections, the lead could be considered as too long. The lead is three paragraphs long. Whilst such a lead might be more appropriate for an article about a large historical period (such as the Greek Empire) or a country (such as Singapore), it is a disproportionate length for a lead about an educational institution.

Layout conventions are well respected in this article, and there are no words to watch. There are no fictional elements in this article, so the guideline on fiction is irrelevant. There are no lists incoprorated into the article, so that guideline is also irrelevant.

Conclusion[edit]

For the foregoing reasons, I must regrettably fail the article on this criterion. This is because - in my opinion - the two subconditions within this criterion (i.e. criterions (a) and (b) must be read conjunctively, and thus must be passed conjunctively (i.e. both subcriteria must be passed) in order to be passed overall in this criterion. Therefore, as the article has failed to satisfy the "clear and concise" requirement of subcriterion (a), it has failed the rest of criterion one.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable[edit]

The Rules[edit]

The Rules state the following:

"

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6] and (c) it contains no original research."

Findings[edit]

Not every paragraph has an individual source reference - there is a paragraph in the "merger" section that has no source citation whatsoever. This could possibly be considered as an instance of original research. As there is no evidence to the contrary, this paragraph will be trated as such.

There are inline citations provided in many paragraphs. However, the order of citation is not in sequential order (e.g. source eight is cited before source one in the article), however this doees not have any effect on the article itself.

As has previously been noted, and for the sake of erring on the side of caution, there is one unreferenced paragraph that could be considered as an instance of original research.

Conclusion[edit]

In light of the foregoing, and for the reasons explained in the conclusion to the assessment of criterion one, this article has failed subcriterion (c) and thus has failed this entire criterion.

3. Broad in its coverage[edit]

Rules[edit]

The Rules state the following: " (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[7] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."

Findings[edit]

The article addresses the main aspects of the topic. It descends into detail regarding various topics of relevance. No further comment will be made, as there is precedent of other articles descending into such detail.

Conclusion[edit]

For the foregoing reasons, and having not considered subcriterion (b), I am restricted to making a finding on subcriterion (a) alone. I therefore decide that the article has passed this criterion.

4. Neutral[edit]

Rules[edit]

The Rules state the following:

"it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each."

Findings[edit]

It is my belief that there is no obvious evidence of bias in favour or against the institution, with all factual information that can be found being impartially reported.

Conclusion[edit]

For the foregoing, I would pass this article on this criterion

5. Stability[edit]

The Rules[edit]

The Rules state the following:

"it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute"

Findings[edit]

Upon consulting the edit history, I find that there are no edit wars. This is the same upon consultation of the talkpage.

Conclusion[edit]

In light of the foregoing, I would pass this article in this criterion.

6. Illustration[edit]

The Rules[edit]

The Rules state the following:

"Illustrated, if possible, by images:[9]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions."

Findings[edit]

I find that the article has many relevant illustrations. Each article has an obligatory fair use rationale, where it is copyrighted, and has the obligatory licensing details on its image page. Each image has a caption that explains to me its relevance and what the image is.

Conclusion[edit]

For the foregoing reason, I would pass the article in this criterion

Overall conclusion[edit]

For the reasons set out above, I must fail this article due to the article's failure of criterion 1, subcriterion (a), and criterion 2, subcriterion (c). The author is invited to consider my opinions and reasons, implement them, and renominate the article.