Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:17, 19 February 2005

Singapore

This article failed FAC a month ago, but after some copyediting and substantial changes by good editors, I feel that the previous problems have been addressed and I strongly believe the article is ready to become a featured article. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. Johnleemk | Talk 13:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support flockofpidgeons 00:22 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support 172 03:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support Natalinasmpf 02:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Small note: I can withdraw my support at any time if something undesirable occurs, right? Natalinasmpf 02:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Johnleemk | Talk 07:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support - Excellent work. --Zappaz 03:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not a vote because I don't want to make people do things they don't want to, but I'd like to see the sections reorganised to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries more. At the moment the ToC is overlong and difficult to swallow: religion could go under demographics, for example, foreign relations under government, and communications and transportation under miscellaneous for a start. Also, since the singapore wiki at http://www.sgwiki.com/ has virtually no content, I find its inclusion in the external links unjustifiable. Mark ¹ 05:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the site, it seems to be an offshoot of a wikipedia sponsored project, is it? Because if it is, it shouldn't be removed, just encourage people to contribute to it. It could be not, then we could simply remove it. -- Natalinasmpf 23:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of offshoots of wikimedia projects, but most of them (like this one) have failed to take off and are just embarrassing. I don't believe that this is an actual wikimedia project, so it's not comparable to wikiquote etc. Mark ¹ 00:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've done my best to fix this up, merging sections as I saw fit and reorganising those that were kept. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, some of the reorganising you did Johnlee is good, but I dislike the term "miscellenous" and some should not be grouped under that, but really either moved or merged to other sections. Especially under education - maybe civil issues or demographics, because education does fit there.. I will try to do this myself if I have the time. -- Natalinasmpf 23:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support. JuntungWu 13:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose (at the time being). Sections with separate main articles are too long. — Instantnood 22:14, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
- which ones?--Ji ang
Oppose. The Miscellaneous section should be reorganized. Transportation and Communications are long enough to be their own sections. Maybe move discussion of law to politics or provide a fitting heading? --Ji ang 22:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Broadly same grounds as Jiang; I personally prefer if the communications, transport and education sections have their own sections proper.JuntungWu 06:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 **which ones?--[[User:Jiang|Ji]][[User talk:Jiang|ang]]
 *Oppose. The [[Singapore#Miscellaneous|Miscellaneous]] section should be reorganized. Transportation and Communications are long enough to be their own sections. Maybe move discussion of law to politics or provide a fitting heading? --[[User:Jiang|Ji]][[User talk:Jiang|ang]] 22:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose'''. Broadly same grounds as Jiang; I personally prefer if the communications, transport and education sections have their own sections proper.[[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] 06:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)