Talk:Presidential elections in Singapore/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
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)
"Quickfail" criteria[edit]
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)
In-depth review criteria[edit]
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)