Talk:Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC): Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Hello! Please give me some time to review this article. Thank you![reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Minor concerns: Before I move on to the major problem with the article, let me first list out some other minor issues I see. First, the LEAD is far too short and doesn't summarize the whole article. The criticism section (see WP:CSECTION) shouldn't be there. Too many WP:CLAIMs in the history section. There are probably many other issues with the article but those are the ones that stood out to me at first glance.

Major concern: To put it simply, there are simply way too many questionable sources in the article:

The Straits Times (cited 11 times): The Strait Times (TST) is currently rated as WP:MARL at RSP. Additionally, the last RfC indicated that "news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt." Given that this entire article concerns Singapore politics, we should probably not rely on this source too much.
channelnewsasia (cited 20+ times): Based on this post at RSN, the overall reliability of CNA is kinda mixed with participants saying it should be treated the same as TST on matters concerning Singaporean politics.
Online Citizen (cited 4 times): Based on various RSN posts (1, 2, 3), the current consensus is that Online Citizen is not an RS. An editor has said that "The Online Citizen and REDWIRE do not pass the muster to be considered as reliable sources." and no editors have spoken in favor of treating Online Citizen as an RS.
TodayOnline (cited about 5 times): See the above posts but most editors compare it to TST or CNA in terms of Singaporean politics.
Mothership (cited 2 times): In this archive, one editor commented "Also most of the media sources you bring up are not reliable (mothership, vulcanpost)." In this unanswered tread, the OP stated "Looking at their about us page, there's nothing too suspicious, though the site didn't stand out as clearly reliable to me either".
SingaporeLegalAdvice.com (cited 10 times). There is no mention of this source at RSN but this is a law firm that likes to advertise their services. Its "editorial team" consists of two individuals. It does not seem like an RS to me.

I'm sorry but the vast majority of this article is cited to questionable or unreliable sources. Strong sources are a necessity for GA. I will need to quick fail this article because "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". Since I am still new to GA reviews, I will allow a more experienced reviewer close this. Thank you very much and I wish you luck on improving this article! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, can you add this and your other review to the list of reviews needing an experienced reviewer, so someone can pick this up to check on it? Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, sure thing! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, and Asilvering: I concur with the review and am closing the nomination. Dr.Swag Lord has done an excellent job demonstrating which sources need to be improved before the article reaches GA. While some of these sources could be used in a limited manner or alongside more reliable sources, the article's reliance on them precludes it from Good Article Status. Thank you for the thorough first review; it has given the article a solid framework for continued improvement. Fritzmann (message me) 18:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to the closure. It gives a general direction of what to do next with the article. Thanks to all those involved. :) – robertsky (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]