Wikipedia:Peer review/Singapore/archive2

Singapore

Thinking of sending it for FAC again, seeking for suggestions and comments for improvement before I do so. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, some things that probably should be resolved though:

. "Although Singapore has relatively warm relations with Malaysia...This however became less of a problem after both countries changed leaders." This needs to be more specific-when did this happen, why exactly did diplomatic relations improve-were the new leaders closer in ideology?
"The first records of Singapore were in Chinese texts dating back to the 3rd century"-what exactly does "first records" mean-the first references to Singapore's existence?
"During the Malay-Portugal wars in 1617, Singapore was set ablaze by Portuguese troops." Needs a mention of the extent of the damage.
In the history section, add a sentence on what happened between 1945-1959-it isn't clear at the moment.
"The fledgling nation had to struggle for self-sufficiency...lack of ... natural resources, like oil". Any other important shortages of natural resources except oil? The sentence needs to establish whether other shortages of natural resources were important, or just oil.
"Critics claim that Singaporean courts have been favouring the government". If its possible, give an example of on individual or group than has been a critic. Political opposition? The media? Also, do the cases in this paragraph refer to libel and slander cases like the ones mentioned in another paragraph or other cases?
Get a better picture than the current one for the Transport section. Perhaps a photo of the outside of a metro train or a metro map.
Perhaps move the transport section to directly below the economy section-more logical organisation, since the transport section mentions a lot that relates to the economy, like trade.
The photo of the central business district has the visible letters "RGW" on the top left. Is it possible to get a version of this photo without the letters, preferably a higher resolution/less compressed version as well. Deus Ex 23:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my first read through the part about the nanny-state should be removed form the lead, and a more concise section written in the politics section about political and social freedom in Singapore, including the comments about homosexuality from the culture section, the discussion currently in the politics section is poorly organised and is given a disproportionate amount of coverage in the article. Although the laws of Singapore are discussed there in no mention of the judicary, what is the highest court ect. Are there local goverment divisions within Singapore, if so why aren't these outlined? There is no mention of Singapores foreign relations- which regional and multinational organisations does it belong to, does it give foreign aid etc, also there is no mention of the military. Why is language discussed in both the demographics and culture sections? There should be some discussion of the general level of education in the population in the demographics section, which year is school compulsory to, what is the university articipation rate, etc. Any stats quoted should have their sources cited using an inline citation template like Wikipedia:Footnote3 or Wikipedia:Footnote4.--nixie 03:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions

At 37kb, it certainaly isn't an enticing read. Summarise it, remove specific instances of incidents. The politics section is too long.
Right-align the images and reduce their size. It makes it easy to read the text.
site This site has Singapore's exteme temperatures.
You could move the international rankings to a new page. It looks messy down there.

I'll review later once again once my concerns are taken care of. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)