Talk:Presidential elections in Singapore/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BrianDeeG (talk · contribs) 14:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC) I intend to review the article. --Brian (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Quickfail" criteria

1. Verifiability – extensive use of inline citation from well-presented bibliography

2. Neutrality – objective style used throughout

3. Cleanup banners/tags – none

4. Edit wars – none

5. Current event – n/a; article is generic and not about a specific election, let alone a current one

6. Paraphrasing/copyright – no obvious problems here given extensive citations

The article easily passes this preliminary review phase. I will perform an in-depth review using the GAC. --Brian (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth review criteria

1. Well-written:

(a) good prose with correct spelling and grammar – fine; I performed copyedits to make minor improvements, one or two of which were to clarify meaning; the one small criticism I would make is that the word "also" was conspicuously overused.

(b) complies with MOS guidelines for:

lead sections – effective summary of the article

layout – complies with MOS: good structure

words to watch – content is objective

fiction – n/a

list incorporation – the one table included is useful, relevant and well-structured

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) notes and references sections – these comply with MOS and are useful and well formatted

(b) inline citations – extensively used; I particularly like the additional information provided within them such as penalties for abuse of the system

(c) no original research – none whatsoever; impeccably sourced

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) addresses main aspects of topic – the scope has been well defined and the article complies with it

(b) stays focused on topic without unnecessary detail – there is a lot of detail in places but none of it unnecessary as the subject is complex

4. Neutrality – good presentation of opposing viewpoints without any show of support

5. Stability – no problems

6. Images are relevant and respect copyright – very useful images all provided by the editors

Conclusion. This article easily passes the GAC. It provides excellent coverage of the subject and I think the editors should apply for featured status. --Brian (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]