Flag of Singapore
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed
GA twice (although the article history erroneously shows three failed GA nominations). GA review
Ncmvocalist's primary concern was that several sections were not written in
summary style. A previous
peer review was archived without receiving any feedback. Please point out other issues that must be addressed if the article is to attain GA status (and
possibly FA status).
Jacklee (the primary contributor) and I will work on the article when we have the time.
Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 10:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Review by Jayron32
Random thoughts, as I come accross them...
- Consider a hatnote on the history section using {{ seealso}} or {{ main}} to link to the main articles such as History of Singapore and Founding of modern Singapore...
- I am a little confused about the two sections "usage guidelines" and "use of the flag" seem to overlap and may be redunant in places. Also, it is confusing as to why there are two so similarly named sections; perhaps a less confusing way to organize this info would help.
- Your references need some cleanup. The use of terms like "see above" and "ibid." and the like are not recommended, since future edits to this article may break the connection those references have with the main reference. A fully unambiguous means of citing the same reference multiple times should be considered. Consider divying up the references into a "General references" section, where the documents being cited are listed, and a "Footnotes" section, where you list the specific page references to the cited print texts. The "footnotes" section could also include single, one-off references to web documents or linked web journals or the like. You can also combine like references using the <ref name=XXXX> tag. Instructions on how to do so are found at WP:CITE and WP:FN guidelines. If you want to see how I have organized my references on articles I have worked to bring to FA, check perhaps Plymouth colony.
The actual writing of the article seems quite well done. It is clearly comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. I think if you can fix the above problems, you may be ready for an FA run with this one. You may run into some of the more picayune silly MOS violations, I myself am no good at spotting those. Those usually come out in the FAC nomination anyways, and they are easy to fix. Good luck, and if you need any more help just let me know! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments
I looked it over and agree that it seems well written and illustrated and generally well referenced. I agree with Jayron's comments above, here are a few more thoughts. There are some fairly short sections / subsections that could probably be merged (this seems to be a common recent request at FAC - if you are not watching some FAC nominations already, it is good preparation to do so - and Flag of Germany is up right now). One example is Design, which is divided into two subsections: Elements and symbolism is only three sentences long and the following Dimensions and colour is only two sentences long. Why not just have one Design section?
There seems to be a contradiction between the last sentence in the first part of the "Usage guidelines" section: The period when the flag may be displayed with minimal restrictions was extended in 2007 to a three-month period from July to September.[11][12] and the first sentence in the "Proper use and display" subsection Singaporeans, and government and non-governmental organisations may display or fly the national flag throughout the year to identify with the nation. Can it be displayed year round or just for three months a year?
The only other comment I would have is to watch for too much repetition. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Flag of Singapore
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed
GA twice (although the article history erroneously shows three failed GA nominations). GA review
Ncmvocalist's primary concern was that several sections were not written in
summary style. A previous
peer review was archived without receiving any feedback. Please point out other issues that must be addressed if the article is to attain GA status (and
possibly FA status).
Jacklee (the primary contributor) and I will work on the article when we have the time.
Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 10:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Review by Jayron32
Random thoughts, as I come accross them...
- Consider a hatnote on the history section using {{ seealso}} or {{ main}} to link to the main articles such as History of Singapore and Founding of modern Singapore...
- I am a little confused about the two sections "usage guidelines" and "use of the flag" seem to overlap and may be redunant in places. Also, it is confusing as to why there are two so similarly named sections; perhaps a less confusing way to organize this info would help.
- Your references need some cleanup. The use of terms like "see above" and "ibid." and the like are not recommended, since future edits to this article may break the connection those references have with the main reference. A fully unambiguous means of citing the same reference multiple times should be considered. Consider divying up the references into a "General references" section, where the documents being cited are listed, and a "Footnotes" section, where you list the specific page references to the cited print texts. The "footnotes" section could also include single, one-off references to web documents or linked web journals or the like. You can also combine like references using the <ref name=XXXX> tag. Instructions on how to do so are found at WP:CITE and WP:FN guidelines. If you want to see how I have organized my references on articles I have worked to bring to FA, check perhaps Plymouth colony.
The actual writing of the article seems quite well done. It is clearly comprehensive, well written, and well referenced. I think if you can fix the above problems, you may be ready for an FA run with this one. You may run into some of the more picayune silly MOS violations, I myself am no good at spotting those. Those usually come out in the FAC nomination anyways, and they are easy to fix. Good luck, and if you need any more help just let me know! -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments
I looked it over and agree that it seems well written and illustrated and generally well referenced. I agree with Jayron's comments above, here are a few more thoughts. There are some fairly short sections / subsections that could probably be merged (this seems to be a common recent request at FAC - if you are not watching some FAC nominations already, it is good preparation to do so - and Flag of Germany is up right now). One example is Design, which is divided into two subsections: Elements and symbolism is only three sentences long and the following Dimensions and colour is only two sentences long. Why not just have one Design section?
There seems to be a contradiction between the last sentence in the first part of the "Usage guidelines" section: The period when the flag may be displayed with minimal restrictions was extended in 2007 to a three-month period from July to September.[11][12] and the first sentence in the "Proper use and display" subsection Singaporeans, and government and non-governmental organisations may display or fly the national flag throughout the year to identify with the nation. Can it be displayed year round or just for three months a year?
The only other comment I would have is to watch for too much repetition. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)