Talk:Speak Good English Movement/GA1

GA Review

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

This article describes a significant and sustained movement in Singapore, and is definitely noteworthy. With regards to the good article criteria, this article, in my opinion, passes all of them, but some may be questionable. I will enumerate each criterion below:

NOTE: Prior to this review, I did some minor editing to correct spelling, clarify sentence structure, etc.

1.a. The prose is mostly well written with few spelling errors and fairly consistent conventions. There are some long or confusing sentences (I attempted to correct the worst offenders). There are some regional spelling alternations ("organise"/"organize") and potentially dialectal words ("cabbies", "taxi drivers").

1.b. Layout, section titles, etc. all seem to follow the MOS.

2.a. Claims are appropriately backed up with sources.

2.b. Sources are newspapers, magazines, government pronouncements, etc. All seem trustworthy.

2.c. There is no original research.

3.a. It is broad in its coverage of the movement.

3.b. This, I think, is the articles biggest weakness. While it is an impressive collection of information regarding the topic, the level of detail is too fine to be called "summary style". While it may be useful to describe the foci for each year, a paragraph should be plenty. We do not need an exhaustive listing of every program and activity that occurred.

4. The article seems neutral. There is some discussion on the talk page about the use of "correct" or "good" English (i.e. that contrasting "good English" with "Singlish" implies that Singlish is bad, and thus a biased viewpoint), and the article might be bettered by changing such phrasing to things like "adherence to Standard English", etc. Taking this too far, however, could lead to a dry read.

5. The article seems to be stable.

6.a. The one included image is a user contribution and released to the public domain.

6.b. The image is relevant and the caption is suitable.

Reviewer: Goodmami (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)