![]() | Singapore Dreaming was one of the Media and drama 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I sent the following e-mail message to the film-makers in hope of getting them to release the photographs of some film-related images partially:
Meanwhile, we have to make do with fair-use images for this article. I'm working on the article now. — Goh wz 15:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I already have research material on WordPad for the following sections:
Please allow me a few days to write my findings out. Thanks. — Goh wz 07:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
More specifically, the grammar in the Plot summary and Production sections in particular is very poor - the tenses are all over the place and make for difficult reading. Thus the GA is on-hold until a copyeditor can provide a solution to this problem. The Rambling Man 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, good work with the copyedit and prose, I have just a couple of further comments and then I think we're there...
Having said that, the prose is much improved, so just attend these last couple of things and I'll gladly pass the article. The Rambling Man 10:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't see a big problem with that, as long as you check the links are back up and running in a couple of weeks time... I'll pass the GA now. Good work to all editors concerned... The Rambling Man 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
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.
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:
I am putting the article on hold for one week pending improvements. Keep me appraised of developments in this space. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 14:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jburlinson ( talk · contribs) 22:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll be glad to review this article for GA status. I'm sorry it's taken so long. I will probably make some minimal changes during the course of the review -- punctuation, spelling, typos, grammar, minor wording, etc. I hope that's OK. If any of these changes are problematic for you, feel free to revert or revise. With luck, I should be finished within 7 days. Thanks to all who have contributed to this article.--
Jburlinson (
talk)
22:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
After reading the article and considering some of the comments made when the article was reassessed 5 years ago, it seems that two of the major concerns expressed in the reassessment have not been addressed adequately. I'm inclined to fail the article, but will put it on hold for a week in case the nominator or other editors want to address the problems. It's an interesting article, broad in coverage; but it's not ready for GA status based on a couple of major issues, as indicated below. Thanks to all who have contributed to the article and are working towards improving the quality of the wikipedia film project.-- Jburlinson ( talk) 18:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
fail. . | I'll keep the review open pending response & discussion about the points raised above.
I'm putting the article on hold for a week to give editors a chance to address some of the concerns expressed above and in the 2009 reassessment. Please let me know if you have questions or would like to discuss further.
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 42 external links on Singapore Dreaming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Singapore Dreaming was one of the Media and drama 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I sent the following e-mail message to the film-makers in hope of getting them to release the photographs of some film-related images partially:
Meanwhile, we have to make do with fair-use images for this article. I'm working on the article now. — Goh wz 15:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I already have research material on WordPad for the following sections:
Please allow me a few days to write my findings out. Thanks. — Goh wz 07:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
More specifically, the grammar in the Plot summary and Production sections in particular is very poor - the tenses are all over the place and make for difficult reading. Thus the GA is on-hold until a copyeditor can provide a solution to this problem. The Rambling Man 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, good work with the copyedit and prose, I have just a couple of further comments and then I think we're there...
Having said that, the prose is much improved, so just attend these last couple of things and I'll gladly pass the article. The Rambling Man 10:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't see a big problem with that, as long as you check the links are back up and running in a couple of weeks time... I'll pass the GA now. Good work to all editors concerned... The Rambling Man 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
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.
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:
I am putting the article on hold for one week pending improvements. Keep me appraised of developments in this space. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 14:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jburlinson ( talk · contribs) 22:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll be glad to review this article for GA status. I'm sorry it's taken so long. I will probably make some minimal changes during the course of the review -- punctuation, spelling, typos, grammar, minor wording, etc. I hope that's OK. If any of these changes are problematic for you, feel free to revert or revise. With luck, I should be finished within 7 days. Thanks to all who have contributed to this article.--
Jburlinson (
talk)
22:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
After reading the article and considering some of the comments made when the article was reassessed 5 years ago, it seems that two of the major concerns expressed in the reassessment have not been addressed adequately. I'm inclined to fail the article, but will put it on hold for a week in case the nominator or other editors want to address the problems. It's an interesting article, broad in coverage; but it's not ready for GA status based on a couple of major issues, as indicated below. Thanks to all who have contributed to the article and are working towards improving the quality of the wikipedia film project.-- Jburlinson ( talk) 18:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
fail. . | I'll keep the review open pending response & discussion about the points raised above.
I'm putting the article on hold for a week to give editors a chance to address some of the concerns expressed above and in the 2009 reassessment. Please let me know if you have questions or would like to discuss further.
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 42 external links on Singapore Dreaming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)