Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Singapore

After some major cleanup, copyediting, summarization and reorganisation (especially to conform with Wikiproject Countries), I think it should be ready to be a featured article. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This article is still listed at Peer review. It shouldn't be in both places at the same time, so please remove it from one of them before proceeding. -- Shauri 19:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object lead-in needs a rewrite. Infobox has strange information, History and Economy too long, Nothing on Media, Sports, Education, Utilities/Infrastructure, Transport. Images are lopsided and needs a cleanup (right align them)spellings are inconsitant. Please use British English instead of the current mix of AE and BENichalp 19:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There were two FACs before this where reverse objections were lodged (i.e., that it was too cluttered. JuntungWu 15:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what I'm saying. What I want is a summary of the history and economy section, and move the airports to Transport. See India and Belgium for how a good summary can be written. Nichalp 18:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is a summary. A nice sized one too. Note that History of Singapore itself is a 36KB article. What is in the ==History== section here is fine. --mav 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • No, the fifth and sixth paragraphs can be compressed into three lines. I've compressed India 5,000 year old history into three paragraphs. It should be piece of cake to shorten the history of singapore. If I had the time (alas :( ) I would have done the compression myself. Nichalp 20:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Summarised the history in four paragraphs. Also made a transport section Nichalp 19:17, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC).

That is just stupid. Now the history section is in the size range that the Wikipedia:Lead section at History of Singapore should be (3 good sized paragraphs). Compare the length of the FA Yosemite National Park#History and the lead section of the FA History of the Yosemite area. I consider your length objection invalid since it flies in the face of established best practice. --mav 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you claim my objection is stupid. You have provided me no guidelines on the corelation between the lead-section of a main history article and the ==History== section. The Yosmite Park and Singapore are two vastly different topics. (I won't elaborate any further on the Park). Flies in the face of established best practice? Pray, what do you (*rudely*) mean by that? You have to provide me a wikipedia convention that supports your theory that it is an established practice. On my part I am perfectly in line with wikipedia guidelines to object. From Wikipedia:Summary#Size Longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. That way our content is useful to those people who just want a quick overview and to those people who want more detail. The sections on Singapore are discrete and a summary is definately reccomended. What I have done is a summary with a decent section length omitting the detailed points for easier readability. I consider your rebuke of my objection baseless. Nichalp 19:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Lead section. It very clearly says that articles of 32KB+ need to have 3 good sized paragraphs. Having the same size summary at Singapore#History and for the lead section at History of Singapore is, well, stupid duplication. And Wikipedia:Summary style says that the section summary at the survey article should be at least twice the size of the lead section at the daughter article. --mav

• • Infobox is odd. remove largest city, and I would like an explanation as to what is being conveyed in the time zone detail (not used?). Nichalp 20:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Media, education, utilities, transport sections are have either been integrated with the economy section, or the detail moved away to the main articles. That's what I've perceived, so I generally support this. -- Natalinasmpf 22:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please sign the nomination. Why should transport be under economy? What about the fabled rail network and buses? Nichalp 20:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Object This article needs to spend more time at Peer review. Crisbas 01:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have already removed it from peer review (just doing housekeeping). Mailer Diablo, please feel free to put it back if you wish (removing it in that case from FAC), or drop me a note and I'll do it. Bishonen | Talk 11:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Not nearly is good as People's Republic of China, the standard for country articles. Neutrality^talk 02:40, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • While I agree it is not as good, I disagree that every FAC needs to be as good as the best example of an FA in that subject area in order to become an FA. No problem at all with having both great and outstanding FAs. It is also unreasonable to assume that an article on such a small nation (such as Singapore) would need to be as good/detailed as an article that covers such a huge and multifaceted nation (such as the PRC). --mav 18:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Most objections are inactionable, as they fly in the face of WikiProject Countries guidelines. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't conflict with the guidelines published in anyway. I'm not saying that the history and economy sections are bad, but I shouldn't be reading seven paragraphs when it can be easily shortened to three/four paragraphs given that there is a detailed article. Similarly as for the infobox: It is understood that Singapore is a city-state. Why have a largest city? I also don't understand what is being conveyed in the timezone part. Nichalp 18:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not too sure what is the reason for it being added back in there, but perhaps it does help in comparisons with other countries?--Huaiwei 19:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No need to add redundant material just to compare. It looks odd seeing a largest city and capital since they are one and the same (there are no multiple cities in Singapore in which the inclusion of both would be justified). In other words, if its clearly understood, don't add. Nichalp 19:24, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • This article really really reminds me of the fable concerning a man, his son and his donkey. The reason those things in the infobox are there is because in a previous FAC nomination, somebody objected because we didn't use the country template. Last time we had more detail on the transportation, etc. until somebody objected because they conflicted with the Wikiproject guidelines. It's like there's no pleasing anybody on this article. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've got to concur with you on this one. It's very difficult to please everybody to pass this through FAC. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • More sections are certainally needed. The article needs an overall picture of Singapore. I don't know about sports, education, transport (since its also a city, these are important). Nichalp 20:15, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Er....so now we have to add the sections back? (only to be told to get rid of them again later?) I am beginning to understand the frustrations espressed by Johnleemk and Mailer Diablo.--Huaiwei 10:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I too sympathise with them, but we also have to take into account that Singapore is also a city, and by omitting them it also conflicts with the city guidelines. If you can add a two paragraphs on transport, education, sports and media; I shall be happy to take care of any objections that may arise if the addition is later opposed. Nichalp 19:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The previous rounds of peer review has more or less cleaned up the problem areas in the article, and I would personally be generally receptive of its nomination.--Huaiwei 16:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object I'm sorry Mailer Diablo, but I think this still needs more work. The images should be right-aligned, and I'm sure there must be more quality images of Singapore. The ones that are on the page now are fairly washed out. Furthermore, due to the size of Singapore, I think some content that would also be featured on a city article is pertinent, such as transport, recreation, media, etc. Take a look at South Africa for some suggestions for subjects to include. Páll 09:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • All images need to be right aligned?! Why do you think we have a choice to right or left align images? Mixing it up looks much better and your personal stylistic preference is not supported by the image use policy. --mav 18:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Or perhaps rather, the lack of enough images to be added on the right-side of the article. The reason why the first and second images are on the left is because of the infobox. Now it's placed on the right, it is pushed down to the politics section. I'll see if I can snap more photos around SG in future. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: But Singapore is a city-state, and has some unique needs for presentation. The best thing, IMO, would be to present the national side of Singapore, and have the details of the city tucked away in another article. The article already mentions the standard of the transport system. -- Natalinasmpf 14:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This article has improved a great deal since I last saw it and looks FA-quality to me now. Good work! --mav 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Changing to Object now that the history section is as long as what would be expected for a lead section at History of Singapore. The history section in this article needs to go into more detail (and be as long as or a bit longer than it was before). See above. --mav 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agh. Do we have to please everyone?!! -- Natalinasmpf 20:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • With these objections, I guess a complete knock-down and rebuild is in order. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Jesus Christ. This is about the only time I've ever had to use Christ's name in vain, and hopefully it'll be the last. I've had it up to *here* with this bullshit. You won't be hearing from me again about this article. Johnleemk | Talk 07:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)