Former good article nomineeGeneral elections in Singapore was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 21, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 15, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the Singaporean parliamentary general election of 2011 the opposition Workers' Party won a Group Representation Constituency for the first time?

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Parliamentary elections in Singapore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    The quality of the prose is not relevant at this time, as the majority of the content in the article will need to be removed and restructured.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    All of the material is covered by inline citations. All of the sources used are reliable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Sadly, the vast majority of the meticulously-researched content in this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. The entire article is essentially just an explanation of everything in the Singaporean constitution and legislation that is relevant the parliamentary elections, something that is explicitly forbidden per WP:NOTMANUAL. What it should do instead is summarize what other authors have written about the subject; everything that appears in Further reading should be used as a source. The technical details and procedures should be condensed to one section which contains only the most essential elements.
    Once that's done, the lead (which is the largest I've ever seen, and not justifiably so) needs to be rewritten to summarize the article's contents in a way that will actually make sense to an uninformed reader. As it currently stands, the lead launches into completely uninformative jargon without even bothering to explain any of the broad ideas that a reader might want to know—that this is a direct election, for example.
    I am of the opinion that the amount of work that needs to be done is sufficient reason for me to immediately fail the article. Once the article has been restructured, I will gladly reevaluate it. I will also provide further feedback if any of the above is unclear.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    The content presented in the article does not lend itself to POV issues. The People's Action Party and the Workers' Party are mentioned more often than the other parties, but that's not problematic since they are the two most popular parties.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    Only a handful of edits have been made in the past few months, none of which drastically changed the content.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    • Image licenses are fine.
    • I don't believe that this image adds anything to the article.
    • All captions are sufficiently informative and are largely unproblematic, except this one: "...who is the Chief Justice or a Supreme Court judge nominated by him." Shouldn't "nominated" be "appointed"?
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Lead too long

edit

According to WP:LEAD, "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate". 175.156.242.240 (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Parliamentary elections in Singapore. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply