Talk:Old National Library Building

A fact from Old National Library Building appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 June 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Old National Library Building, a much-beloved national icon of Singapore, was demolished despite a rare display of public opposition?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/June.

Wikipedia

Old National Library Building was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 12, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
November 3, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Singapore Low‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 31, 2024.

Tone problems

Large parts of this article do not have an encyclopedic tone. Some examples:

"the rare display of civic activism on its preservation became a watershed event in generating greater awareness of Singapore's heritage and its conservation in future."
The section headline: "Gone but not forgotten"
"the city planners got the message loud and clear - To think with the head and heart in future."
"as a symbolic gesture of the new connecting with the old and its legacy in the hearts of Singaporeans."

These sound like their coming from a memorial for the building.--Carabinieri 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per highlighted concerns, I've make the neccesary amendments on the tone of my article. Thk u for your feedback. -- Aldwinteo 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Per WP:FOOTNOTE: "Avoid using Ibid or similar abbreviations in footnotes. Other editors who add new references to the article may not take the time to correct Ibid references broken by their addition. Furthermore, not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the term. If a reference is reused in more than one footnote, it is preferable to use the format "Smith, Short Title, 182" rather than "Ibid, 182", so as to avoid these problems, or use named references if appropriate." – Chacor 09:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has been bugging me too. Anyway, I've fixed it. I actually prefer citing the whole work instead of page numbers, and combining the citations. If there is consensus I will make the change that way. --Rifleman 82 11:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted Chacor, am learning along the way. Thk u Rifleman 82 for making the nec amendments earlier & defending my works all these while. -- Aldwinteo 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Old National Library Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 04:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Comment: Interesting article on a historical building, well structured with a generous amount of images, definitely a good article. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 04:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There are uncited statements, including entire pargaraphs, throughout the article. These have been tagged as such since March 2024.
The lead focuses on the controversy and demise of the building, but does not contain much information about its construction or pre-2004 history. I suggest that an additional paragraph be added to include this information.

Is anyone interested in fixing up the article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Old National Library Building

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements, including entire pargaraphs, throughout the article. These have been tagged as such since March 2024. The lead focuses on the controversy and demise of the building, but does not contain much information about its construction or pre-2004 history. I suggest that an additional paragraph be added to include this information. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked the reviewed version back in 2014 which also had significant portions uncited. Some of the wording is also awkward and unencyclopedic. And yeah, it mainly covers its history and very little of the building design itself. I mean, I've worked on a historical monument Singapore Conference Hall which is modelled upon Epicgenius' work on various NYC landmarks.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.