Talk:Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore

Logo and charity sidebar ?

Hey there; I noticed that this page is currently awaiting a GA review. Unfortunately, I don't have the experience to actually review the page, but if I may, I have a few suggestions for improvement; Why not a sidebar at the top right hand corner, explaining the details of the organisation and containing an image of the group's logo ? Good luck on your GA review! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

copyedit

Your article was in pretty good shape, some minor prose fixes throughout for slightly easier reading, but if you don't agree that any changes I've made are for the better, please feel free to revert me, I won't be offended! --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: theTigerKing (talk · contribs) 10:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation Links

Hello! Please make use of the disambig links in the Toolbox to remove dis-ambiguous links from the article. There are many of them in the article. Would review it back after a week.Thanks. theTigerKing (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The tool found no disambiguation links on Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore. What next? Could we proceed with the review? Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of red links in the article.Please remove them or provide relevant links for the same.Examples->Special Olympics Singapore,Association for Persons with Special Needs,broken families. Thanks. theTigerKing (talk)11:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Failure Reasons

As per Wikipedia policy for nominating articles for good article status, the article should cover broad range of topics. The article is not broad enough, is of short length which will not make it a good read for the users and lacks required reliable references. The article is not well-written. Some of the text has been mentioned many times over which makes it sound verbose. The article, if possible, should be illustrated with the images so as to make it a good read. You could provide images of the offices or the logo of the organization. You could make use of the info-box to furnish more information about the organization. You could alternatively provide information about the management team, the challenges they faced while setting it up or any other relevant reliable information relevant to the article. Please provide citations for the financial figures mentioned in the article. Some of the comments received at peer review page (Ruhrfisch comments) for this article, if implemented, should help it achieve it a Good Article status. I wish you would make amends to it and renominate the article for GA review process ASAP. Thanks. theTigerKing (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Response from Hildanknight

• This year, I rewrote Fandi Ahmad and the article passed GAN despite having no images, as images are not required by the GA criteria. A free image of the logo cannot be found or made, while trying to take a free photo of the offices may land me in trouble with the law.
• Since when were a lack of red links part of the GA criteria?
• Could you elaborate on "lacks required reliable references"? All offline references are from Singaporean newspapers.
• Another of my GAs, Pathlight School, is similarly short. There is limited coverage of disability organisations in Singapore (an island nation in Southeast Asia). Nevertheless, thanks for suggesting information that I could add to the article. I will recheck my sources, and look for new sources, hoping to find such information.
• I was not aware that Ruhrfisch had commented at the peer review. Thanks for pointing that out; I will address his comments.
• Would appreciate clarification and/or a second opinion.
• --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Response from theTigerKing

• Having images in the article was a personal opinion. It was based on the premise that the organization would be having a logo and if you are having access to it, you can put it up in the article. Yes, I know the fact that having no images in the article would not disqualify an article.
• What is the purpose red links serving in the article at first place? If a Wikipedia page exists, then we can link it to the other pages. You could have removed the links and put them up once the pages have been created. It was not a criteria of me rejecting it.
• I was asking for the references for the financial numbers mentioned in the lead section of the article. You must be referring some source for the same. Anyone could question the numbers and ask for reliable sources for the same. Else, only a member of the organization being mentioned in the article would be knowing about the financial health of it. How did you get them at first place then?
• I commend and appreciate your work towards covering the disability organizations which are under-represented in the Wikipedia. :)

The readers would expect more on the article being mentioned like how the organized has improved the lives of people, how one can get enrolled for voluntary activities, the location from where it operates, activities it performs like awareness etc. You could also mention about the disability laws in brief which operate in the country. You could approach the organization and inform them that you are writing an article about them and that you need their help to complete it.

I could see some of the sentences in the lead section being repeated at other sections of the article making it verbose. You could re-frame such sentences.

Nevertheless, I am requesting a second opinion either from a more experienced reviewer, or someone with more expertise on this subject.

All the very Best! Please revert to me, if you need any help. theTigerKing (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Further response from Hildanknight

• Glad you acknowledge that a lack of images does not disqualify an article.
• The Association for Persons with Special Needs is a real, notable Singaporean disability organisation, and I do intend to write a GA about them in future. Special Olympics Singapore has been relinked to Special Olympics. I have no objection to removing the redlink for broken families, but I am sure the concept is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.
• Reference 4 covers both of the first two sentences of the Management section, so I placed the citation at the end of the second sentence. However, I have repeated the citation at the end of the first sentence to make this more explicit.
• Requesting a second opinion is a good decision. It will help you learn more about GA reviewing.
• The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, so some repetition of information is natural.
• --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Further response from theTigerKing

• I never made an argument of disqualification of an article with respect to lack of images in it. Please read my comments carefully. Hence, there is no talk of any "acknowledgement".
• In the lead section you have mentioned "MINDS generates yearly expenses of 21 million Singapore dollars (approximately US$16.6M As of April 2012)". You have reinstated the same fact in the Management section as "MINDS is one of the oldest and largest voluntary welfare organizations in Singapore, with 420 staff, 2400 beneficiaries, and yearly expenses of S$21 million". You have provided Straits Times, 27 August 2005 reference for the same. Now could please explain how the reference published in 2005 justify the figures for 2012? I still stand by my argument that the article "lacks reliable and credible references" and hence in its present avatar does not deserve GA status.
• I believe that the topic is too narrow in its content and does not make a good read (GA Category). It could be expanded and made broader. Suggestions have been provided on how to make it more broader on the peer review page of this article and on this page by many editors. A detailed review at this stage is premature, I believe.

It could be upgraded to a C category article.

Thanks and Regards, theTigerKing (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Further review

I have reviewed the article and made some edits to include the company infobox and the disability sidebar which links this non-profit organization to the global network of service providers for people with disabilities. I do not share the concern that this article is not broad enough to warrant GA status. An article about a national disability service provider which is complete in all other respects, should be able to be a Good Article. My remaining concern, is that raised above by other reviewers, and is based on the timeliness of the information. As the subject organization's website has been down, it is hard to determine their latest figures. Once that can be updated, and is, the article could be a GA. I hope my review has been helpful in improving the article. Argos'Dad 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and review. Argos'Dad and Vaibhavgupta1989, could we all agree that the only major concern is that some information may be outdated and the nomination should be placed on hold for two weeks to allow me to address this concern? I have two other GA nominations on hold (Xiaxue and Coat of arms of Singapore) and am rushing to finish writing Ya Kun Kaya Toast before I must return a book source to the library. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with this staying on hold, if Vaibhavgupta1989 agrees, but it is not your responsibility alone to edit this page; after all, you don't own it. I will continue working on it. Argos'Dad 12:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is no reason why this article should not be put up on hold for another two weeks. J.L.W.S. The Special One and everyone in particular should work to improve this worthwhile article. There was another comment below this comment which contends the "narrowness" of the article. Everyone should work upon it meantime. Irrespective of when the comment mentioned in the section below was put up, I want everyone to be taken on-board. I propose to have a section on the "narrowness of the article". Every view point would be discussed and debated. The purpose the new section would would be to reach at the consensus at the earliest. What say? :) Regards theTigerKing (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

To provide a quick second opinion, the first thing I noticed is the poor formatting of the references. Articles need to have the title and publisher, as well as the url and accessdate if an online source and the publication date if it exists. Only about half the refs (the offline ones) are formatted decently. If you struggle to keep them consistent, then use the citation templates. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What do I need to add to the online references? Access dates? Anything else? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the WP:CITEHOW. Also, please provide the page numbers for the PDFs being referred to. theTigerKing (talk)16:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITEHOW is not part of the Good article criteria. Please see the editing guideline reviewing good articles, specifically this section: Imposing your personal criteria and the essay recommended in that guideline Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. Some PDFs do not have page numbers, as is the case here. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And the "citation needed" tag you just added, Vaibhavgupta1989, has been fixed. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that asking for publisher info in references is imposing personal criteria; it's to verify that the article does in fact follow 2b. While reference consistency isn't explicitly in the criteria, I think that's an issue of common sense that one format should be used in refs. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

ok. Personally I think that a little leeway should be given to this article considering the subject and the difficulty of finding information, and the hard work the editor has done. This wikipedia article has been copied many places on the internet, showing that the topic is one of interest. But whatever. I'm too stressed from many long, articles I reviewed for for the GA drive, situations where people are openly POV, violating copyrights, etc. that the problems in this article are so minor in comparison. And the editor doesn't have the same agenda that many self-promoting editors do. But oh well. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdent, I went and fixed the refs myself, since there wasn't much to fix anyway. It is minor, but I just want the article to be as good as it can, while of course meeting GA criteria. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Wizardman! I've no personal involvement in the article, though I've become aware of articles regarding disabilities recently and reviewed one, so I'm glad to see this editor get some help. Makes me feel good about wikipedia. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Provide Inputs

 Done theTigerKing (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In the lead section second paragraph, there is a text which goes like this: " MINDS generates yearly expenses of 21 million Singapore dollars (approximately US$16.6M As of April 2012)". And in the Management section there is a similar text: "MINDS is one of the oldest and largest voluntary welfare organisations in Singapore, with 420 staff, 2400 beneficiaries, and yearly expenses of S$21 million." with a reference to The Straits Times, 27 August 2005 edition. Please clarify :

1) Whether the figures of 21 million Singapore dollars, in both the sections, are for the year 2005 or 2012?
2) Whether the figure of US$16.6M for the month of April 2012 has been generated from the 21 million Singapore dollars figure of 2005 by using the currency exchange price of SD-USD and extrapolating the figures suitably that existed in the month of April 2012?If not, please provide the citation for the USD figures mentioned in the lead section in the lead section itself.

The figures mentioned in the lead section for the USD have been mentioned to be of April 2012, whereas the reference used in the management section of the article are of the year 2005. The figures are simply contradictory. I have written about this previously as well, but no action has been taken upon it. You had asked for two weeks hold time. If no inputs are provided or no updations are done in the article within a week for the same, the article would fail the GA criteria of reliability. I am giving you a week's time to act upon it. Regards theTigerKing (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Very well written article, however I agree with the reviewer on the issue of general narrowness of the article's subject. That being said, I would improve it the following ways:

1. Tie MINDS to similar organizations that might be more known. How does MINDS affect international efforts to help the developmentally disabled?
2. Cite some examples of their involvement in the community in Singapore. How does MINDS affect the general public?
3. What ties does MINDS have to the government of Singapore, and in a more broad sense the international community?
4. What can the average citizen do to help MINDS accomplish their goals?
5. Much of the examples given in the article itself tend to focus solely on events in relative antiquity. Perhaps adding something to the article about recent (within the last 10 years) contributions of the organization to help make the organization feel more relevant as you read the article.

Overall the article is very well written, all the links are well placed and this is very close to GA status.

With Love <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Further review - my opinion is that the article passes GA

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   Off line sources are accepted in good faith

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I would pass this article.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909043703/http://www.ncss.org.sg/presidents%20award/pastwinners2001_myg.htm to http://www.ncss.org.sg/presidents%20award/pastwinners2001_myg.htm

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).

• 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) 05:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)