Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this article about a Singaporean charitable organisation serving the intellectually disabled! The organisation turns 50 this year and the goal is GA status for this article. Could you support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by pointing out any and all issues that would prevent the article from meeting the GA criteria? The Management section is of particular concern. Should I mention the awards, which were by Singapore government bodies? Is the official website a better source for the sentence about corporate structure, than a 1993 news article whose information may be outdated? What other information could be added to this short section and is there a better name for the section?

I hope you enjoy reviewing this short, but interesting, article, as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Comments

As far as I can see, there is generally not much keeping this from being a GA. I'll give suggestions for general improvements anyway:

  • You have one DAB link.
    Done, please check The rehabilitation link now points to rehabilitation (neuropsychology) though I am unsure whether this is the best article to link to. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's good. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They run four special schools and a centre called MINDSville@Napiri, which offers several types of therapy and residential care." - I would remove the "several types of" because without those words, the sentence really means the same thing, but it's tighter.
    Done The intended meaning was that there are several options for residential care, besides the usual ones provided by most similar organisations, and likewise, wide options for therapy, but I guess it does not come across, so removing the redundant phrase. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Founded in 1962, MINDS is among the largest charities in Singapore, with 420 staff, 2400 beneficiaries and yearly expenses of S$21 million." - You could link "S$" to Singaporean dollar. I'm sure you'll get many foreign readers (like yours truly) here.
    Done Thanks for pointing that out, foreign reader! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the term "retarded" had acquired negative connotations and the organisation had started services for adults," - "Since" to "After" works a lot nicer here. The word "since" is a bit awkward in causal clauses.
    Clarification needed Simply changing "Since" to "After" would make the "had"s grammatically incorrect. How should I reword the sentence? Or would simply changing "Since" to "As", which would not mess up the "had"s, be fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you could keep it as is. It's kind of a strange word to use in place of "because" (which you can also use). I guess I read a bit too much into WP:CHECKLIST. :-) —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Last but not least" - Very informal transition. I don't think you need a transitional term here. Simply removing will do.
    Done, please check Removed the transition, but the last sentence does seem awkward without a transition. Would "In addition" (with or without moving the sentence so it is the second of the paragraph) do? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "In addition" would for GAN, but have in mind that additive terms and transitions are frowned upon in FAC, to which you probably won't take it though. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MINDS is one of the oldest and largest voluntary welfare organisations in Singapore, with 420 staff, 2400 beneficiaries and yearly expenses of S$21 million." - could link S$ here too.
    Done See above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Awards that MINDS have won include the 2001 President's Social Service Award (for MINDS Youth Group)" - Subject/verb disagreemtn? Do you mean "has won"?
    Clarification needed In British English, when are collective nouns plural and when are they singular? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I could be wrong. Based on what I observe, you refer to them as an organization in singular and as a group of people in plural? There's a MOS page on this I'm sure, but I just cannot find it... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look good. Although, if you were to take the article to FAC, the article may not be comprehensive enough, so try and see if it can be expanded.
    Comment I would never take any of my GAs or potential GAs to FAC! As a non-native English speaker writing on poorly covered topics, I know my limits. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great topic you've worked on and well written too. My review may not appear thorough, but I've read it for concerns that may be raised at GAN and I did not find many. I'm no expert at the subject area, but I think you've gotten a great outside opinion on your work. Hope this helps, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I agree that you have given a great outside opinion. The questions I posed about the Management section could be answered, should you feel like doing a further review of this article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. You're welcome for the review! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this looks like it is ready for GAN, here are some fairly minor suggestions for improvement.

  • Any chance for an image or two? Perhaps a photo of one of their facilities? Or if they have a logo, that could be shown here under WP:FAIR USE
  • It would help to identify when these statistics were valid "...MINDS is among the largest charities in Singapore, with 420 staff, 2400 beneficiaries and yearly expenses of S$21 million." From the ref it appears this is as of 2005, so it may have changed since.
  • MOS says to define abbreviations on first use, so "Singapore Association for Retarded Children (SARC)"
  • Ditto for AESN
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Any idea when Ng became executive director?
  • Any other named leaders in their 50 year history?
  • Are there any events planned for their 50th anniversary this year?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Movement_for_the_Intellectually_Disabled_of_Singapore/archive1&oldid=1140416922"