Talk:Murder of Huang Na/GA2

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Hildanknight in topic Other opinions

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'll be conducting a review of this article to ensure it meets the GA criteria. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm placing the article on hold to allow contributors to address the below concerns. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Nikkimaria! Thanks for the review! Unfortunately, you could not have chosen a worse time to review this; I have exams this coming week! I will do what I can in between study sessions, but please be patient! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Writing and formatting

edit

Accuracy and verifiability

edit

Broad

edit
  • Given that there is no separate article on Huang Na or Took, it's good to have some detail on each. You've got a bit, but are missing some - for example, when was Huang Na born? What was Took's execution date?
  • More detail in general would probably be helpful; this appears to be a high-profile case in Singapore, surely more details are available?

Singapore is a little red dot with a population of less than five million people. There are only a few major Singaporean newspapers, all of which are by Singapore Press Holdings. Hence information is scarce, even for "a high-profile case". Some information was omitted due to BLP concerns (I know Huang Na and Took are both dead, but their family members are still alive, so I opted to err on the side of caution). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Neutrality

edit

No issues noted

Stability

edit
  • No recent major edits to the article; however, I note a history of rolling back good-faith edits. Please keep in mind that such behaviour is discouraged. However, that was far enough in the past to be ignored in consideration of the article's current stability.
    Noted. That will not happen again. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Images

edit

Other opinions

edit

Hi, i think personally that the article is almost GA ready. With the few exceptions pointed out by the reviewer. But i would say that it is GA ready when those fixes had been made.--Bödeln (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I posted an initial reply and was waiting for the reviewer to respond to it, but she did not, so I forgot about the review as I was busy with school. Now I am back and will continue addressing the issues she raised, but I hope she will be back too. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
As this article is now GA standard, is it possible to push it towards FA status? --Siva1979Talk to me 05:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I doubt so, considering how short the article is and that most Singaporeans are not native speakers of English (the key difference between the GA criteria and FA criteria is the prose standards). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply