Jump to content

Talk:2006 Singaporean general election/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Commencing GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary issues

[edit]

The following are also broken links:

These will have to be removed if they cannot be redirected. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 14:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a number of facts/claims that are amde in the article that require sourcing.
  • There is also some confusion regarding in-line citation. The following is a clear example of the problem:
"On 19 March, Lee Hsien Loong said that PAP was aiming to win all the constituencies including the two opposition wards in Hougang SMC and Potong Pasir SMC, stating that "We want to win, this is not masak-masak [a Malay term meaning a child's game]".[citation needed] The PAP candidates for these two wards would be Eric Low and Sitoh Yih Pin respectively. Both lost in the previous elections but had been working the ground in these wards since. They were assisted by Goh Chok Tong who had been given the special assignment to help the PAP win the two wards."
Although a source is cited at the end of this paragraph, whenever there is a direct quote a source should be specifically included. This avoids confusion, as it is currently uncertain as to whether the source which concludes the paragraph is also the source of the quote. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 15:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was also no independent candidate participating in this election; this was a rare occurrence as independent candidates had participated in every election since 1955, except in 1980." I am not sure what this is supposed to mean: are independent candidates rare or common?? ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 16, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. This action has been taken immediately because 1) there has been no content improvements made to this article since October 2009; denoting a lack of interest in this page within the community at the current period; 2) The article requires extensive attention and improvement, and is very unlikely to be brought up to GA standard within 7 days. The article has failed GA criteria per the review set out below:

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • There are some sections of the article that are poorly written and confusing. This is the English Wikipedia, and although contributions from second-language English speakers are very welcome, GA articles require a certain standard of English to meet criteria as set out in GA:WIAGA.
    b (MoS):
    • There is excessive wikilinking in certain parts of this article. See above concerns,
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • There are a number of statements and claims made in the article that are not supported by sources. Any claim or statement made requires a degree of substantiation. More problematically, there are a significant amount of broken or dead sources, which account for around 30 individual citations in the article. This is a MAJOR deficiency and the article fails GA on this alone.
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • Active references are to a good array of sources.
    c (OR):
    • I have passed the article on this criteria. HOWEVER, the number of broken/dead references means that alot of citations are unverifiable and therefore alot of article content. However, because the tone of the article seemed to be neutra I have given it the benefit of the doubt.
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.
    b (focused):
    • Remains focused. No digressions. However, the article could probably do with tightening up.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    • Again, the number of broken/dead references makes it difficult to determine the viability of some content. Again, the article seems to treat material with a NPOV, but without correct citations it is not possible to verify.
  5. It is stable:
    • No edit wars etc.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • Images are properly tagged and justified.
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.
  7. Overall:
    Keep/Delist: DELIST ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Singaporean_general_election/GA1&oldid=1141742144"