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

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about a Singaporean politician who focuses on the disabled and special needs communities. Since I am doing a project about her in junior college, I decided to write an article about her. I would like the article checked for prose, MOS (or MOnSter), NPOV and BLP issues before I nominate it for GAN in early November. (Do point out other issues that may prevent the article from attaining GA status.)

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by Jaakobou:

• Missing images... article really needs at least one.

  Finding photos of Singaporeans is pretty difficult, due to systemic bias. Someone else uploaded a photo of her, which the anti-fair use brigade deleted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Send an email, ask permission. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing date of birth. [1]

  Could an infobox be added with this information? Giggy (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Phua is not a public figure, so I think we should not include her birth date in the article. Such BLP paranoia seems justified by a recent arbitration ruling and the political climate of Singapore. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  From the BLP page linked; "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." The subject is clearly notable, and you haven't even listed the year of birth. Giggy (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Year of birth should be listed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be a bit less "narrative voice" towards the political platforms. Shorten it to "ran on the platform of XXX and YYY.. result was ZZZ"

  Done Political career section edited. Two sentences in the second paragraph were moved to the first; the rest were deleted. What do you think of the new first paragraph? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good - I've made a small edit there. Second Paragraph has a "which" issue regarding "implemented some of them" which should be clarified a bit. The last sentence in that paragraph ("after they die") should probably be merged elsewhere/shortened for possible lack of notability. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in mind "historical/long-term" writing. If something is being done now-now, it should either be written as "in 2008 she's done XXX". If there is no way to avoid it (per "As an MP, she focuses on..."), then it should be separated from the 'historical' notes or rephrased to focus on the past. e.g. "During her MP tenure, she has focused on...".

  I do not really understand this comment. More examples would help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed the one which bothered me, it wasn't a big deal. You can read about the general concept at WP:DATED. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• References: Unless it's very contentious material, you can place references together at the end of the sentence or possibly even at the end of a paragraph. There's no reason to separate the sources on the first line in "Early years and corporate career". Also, seeing the number of times source no. 2 is used, there might be room to just place all three sources at the end of the paragraph.

  As noted above, I am concerned about BLP violations. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll fix it where it seems worth doing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC) + 11:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC) + 11:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by Chenzw:

• In "the school attracted media attention for its impact on students.", the citations should be in order (13,14,17).

  Reference 17 is for the fact that "enrolment increased tenfold", while the other two are for the fact that "the school attracted media attention for their impact on students"; numerical order might mislead readers. I recall the MOnSter says that citations should be placed after punctuation (though I can no longer find the link). Perhaps there is a better way to resolve this. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done See my comments to Jacklee, who also raised this issue. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "she is now its supervisor" - Is it alright for schools to be referred by "it"?

  Done Changed "its supervisor" to "their supervisor" (and "its students" to "their students"). Schools are collective nouns and, in British English, should be plural. Thanks for spotting that. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Undone per consensus on talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The Singapore Parliament website has a photo of her. Don't know about license, though.
  • Comment: License is "contact us first". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chenzw  Talk  11:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by roux

• Refs should be placed in ((cite)) templates;

  Will leave this to someone else who is familiar with cite templates. They are recommended but not mandatory. I find that they are confusing make editing citations difficult. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• URLs should be added to all refs that are accessible online;

  Already done All five online references have been linked to. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to use an acronym (e.g. PAP), you should spell it out in full with the acronym immediately after (e.g. People's Action Party (PAP));

  PAP, MP and GRC are all defined in the lead section. Perhaps you were thrown off when PAP was spelt in full at the start of the Political career section? I think it should be abbreviated there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with Jaakobu; photo needed as well as ((Infobox person))

  See my response to him. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove redlinks;

  There are only three redlinks: Wuthelam Group, Centre for Effective Leadership and WeCAN. Wuthelam is a Singaporean conglomerate she worked for, CEL was a company she founded and WeCAN is a non-profit organisation she founded. All three are notable and relevant to the article. If you can show that they are not notable or not relevant, I will remove the redlinks. (Redlinks are not evil; they suggest that articles need to be created.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Raffles Girls School (Secondary) should be piped to Raffles Girls' School;

  Done Brackets removed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "caregivers of autistics" should probably be something like "caregivers of people with autism"; my understanding (and it could be wrong) of current views in the disabled community is that people should generally be referred to as people first, affliction modifying that.

  Not done My research about the autistic community suggests otherwise. See, for example, this essay by Jim Sinclair, a leading figure in the autism rights movement. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The school offers the mainstream curriculum"

  Done Not sure whether "the" should be removed, but I will trust you as I am not a native speaker. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal Life section - the son has already been described as autistic, no need to mention it again

  Done Removed second mention of him as autistic. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps. - [ roux ] [x] 11:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading your responses, I think you have addressed the major concerns well, and I have no problems with how you have addressed anything. Good luck on the GAR! [ roux ] [x] 04:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by delldot ∇.

Very well-referenced, informative article! Just some suggestions, up to you whether you implement them:

• She subsequently founded WeCAN, a voluntary organisation which helps caregivers of autistics and trains special education teachers.[2][3][8] WeCAN also offers an early intervention programme for preschoolers.
  • Is "caregivers of autistics" really the way you would refer to them, or would it be "autistic people"? I know there's a guideline somewhere that says use the word as an adjective rather than a noun (e.g. "epileptic people" or "people with epilepsy", not "epileptics").

  The autistic community prefer to be referred as "autistics". "Autistic people" is considered fine, while "person with autism" may be highly offensive. Do point me to the guideline and I will edit the article accordingly. (I hope the MOnSter does not encourage the use of terms which promote discrimination.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Changed to "autistic people" after finding the guideline. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • presumably referring to just autistic preschoolers, right? This second sentence is a bit of a tangent, talking about what the organization she founded currently does. It doesn't explain how the organization started out, what it started out by doing. Alternately you could join the two sentences to make the description of the organization more parenthetical.

  As with many Singaporean topics, referenced information on the organisation is scarce, but I will continue researching. Yes, the early intervention programmes are only for autistic preschoolers. I included that information in a seperate sentence because two-sentence paragraphs are bad. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I recommend "intervention programme for preschoolers" → "intervention programme for autistic preschoolers" for clarity. delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Added "autistic" in front of "preschoolers" for clarification. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• she is now their supervisor - change to she is their supervisor as of [year] per WP:DATED.

  I presume that when her position changes, the website will be changed to reflect that. The point of that clause is to show that she is still actively involved in Pathlight (she did not co-found the school and abandon them subsequently). If you insist, I can change the sentence, but the new sentence must be clear and grammatically correct. How about "she later became their supervisor" or "as of 2008, she is their supervisor"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I like "as of 2008, she is their supervisor". delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done despite my concern that this change may create prose flow problems. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2005, Phua decided to leave the corporate world to be a full-time special needs volunteer -- she decided to in 05? Or she did it in 05? I recommend a read-through to eliminate unnecessary or redundant wording, e.g. decided to leave → left.

  Done Changed "decided to leave" to "left". Good catch! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• She often wrote to newspapers and government agencies on issues affecting the special needs community. -- I'm not seeing the significance of this sentence. Did this have some effect that you could clarify?

  She wrote those letters in her capacity as president of ARC(S). Through the letters, she aimed to increase awareness of autism and change the PAP's mindset towards autistics. Since Singaporeans are generally conservative, her willingness to speak up was a reason why the PAP wanted her. (In the Singaporean movie I Not Stupid, there is a joke that it is difficult to catch fish in Singapore, because they are like Singaporeans and will never open their mouths.) I hope these do not need to be explicitly explained. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Give it some context, it's confusing otherwise. delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done The sources imply this but do not explicitly say so. Such clarifications may thus be considered original research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename header "As a volunteer" to "Volunteering" or "Volunteer work".

  Done Header name changed. Thanks for your suggestion. I did feel the header name should be changed, but could not find a beter name. "Voluntary career" sounds like an oxymoron! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Explain what "satellite classes" are.

  The article explains that satellite classes are "where Pathlight students mix with neurotypical peers". The term neurotypical (which means "non-autistic") is wikilinked. If you feel this explanation is inadequate, kindly explain why and feel free to suggest better explanations. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Assume the reader has less familiarity with the topic than you. Unfamiliar terms should be explained in the text so the reader does not have to go look them up or be lost or confused. It's your job to figure out how ;) delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  How about changing "neurotypical peers" to "mainstream students"? The term is not offensive and "where Pathlight students mix with mainstream students" seems like an explanation that is simple to understand. I could shorten it to something like "where Pathlight and mainstream students mix", but that might be confusing. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Jacklee also mentioned this, so I went ahead and made the change. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In four years, enrolment increased tenfold -- If there's a reference for what the dates and numbers actually are, more specific would be better.

  Will go through my references again, although I am not sure how necessary or useful this detail is. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the school attracted media attention for their impact on students. -- Awkward. Maybe "for its" but it still wouldn't be perfect.

  The article is written in British English, where, if I am not wrong, collective nouns (like schools) are plural. Perhaps a native speaker of British English could comment on this? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Changed per discussion on talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• fielded as a PAP candidate -- put the acronym in parentheses after the first use of the whole word.

  Already done The acronym is actually defined in the lead section. In fact, I doubt the full form needs to be used in the first sentence of the Political career section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The political career section is difficult for someone unfamiliar with Singaporean politics to understand. Maybe give a little background in parentheticals.

  Do tell me what you find confusing and I will see how I can explain it. I believe that articles I write should be accessible to both Singaporeans (who are usually not native speakers) and non-Singaporeans (who may be unfamiliar with the context). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is workgroup a word? Is masterplan?

  Done Changed "masterplan" to simply "plan", as I could not find a Wikipedia article or Wiktionary definition on the term. Wiktionary has a definition for workgroup, so I believe it is a word. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• CPF is a dab page. Again, when you use an acronym, explain it on the first use.

  Done Changed CPF to the full name, Central Provident Fund. (Some Singaporeans joke that it means "Cash Prior to Funeral".) No need for brackets; it is only used once. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Article needs photos. Maybe get permission for one of her, at least get one of the school or another topic discussed in the article.

  Not done Images are not a GA requirement. Images do exist; you could try uploading one and hoping the anti-fair use brigade do not notice it, but I would rather not. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Does she speak/appear publically regularly? Conferences, public speaking, stuff like that? Is it possible to attend one of these and get a photo? Also, have you tried requesting a photo? Giggy (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Laws were also drafted to prohibit abuse of the mentally disabled and to allow parents to appoint someone to look after their special needs children after they die. -- What role did Phua have in this, if any? Why is it in the article if she didn't?

  These were based on ideas from the workgroup and masterplan. Hence they are examples of ideas the government studied and implemented. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Merged the sentence with the one before that to clarify this. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Phua criticised the PAP's "many helping hands" approach, saying that special education should be led by the Ministry of Education (MOE), as they had more resources and expertise-- what was the PAP's "many helping hands" approach?

  Under the approach, the needy receive help from many sectors of the community (called "helping hands") - the family, charitable organisations and the government. Should I create an article about the approach or is there a better way to explain it? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Explain in a parenthetical or a followup sentence. delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  How about something like "Phua criticised the PAP's "many helping hands policy", whereby... She felt that special education...."? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, or "many helping hands policy", which... Or you could explain it in another sentence. delldot ∇. 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I added a basic explanation of the "many helping hands" approach, which I hope is sufficient, as there is much more to the approach than that. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What are "targets for learning outcomes"?

  Targets for learning outcomes are what schools want their students to learn/achieve before leaving school. For example, a certain number of O-Level passes or pre-vocational certification. Would you like to suggest a better wording? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Explain in a parenthetical or a followup sentence. delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Added an example from the reference, to avoid original research. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Phua enjoys reading by the sea. -- I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value of this. I can see how with an obscure person it'd be tempting to include whatever info you can get but I think it's also important to keep the article focused and to exclude uninformative material.

  To be honest, I would rather remove the entire Personal life section, but I am not sure whether the article needs it to be "broad in its coverage" (GA criterion 3a). Do you think the article could do without the Personal life section? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think who her family is is relevant, as long as you have a source. But no, I don't think it needs it. delldot ∇. 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I removed the entire Personal life section, following a discussion on the talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The tone could use a little tweaking. I think it would be worthwhile to do a read-through to find cases of corporate speak and unnecessarily glowing descriptions, e.g. "she gained experience in human resource management and product marketing, spending several years overseas developing their marketing communications strategy" (gained experience? Strategy? This terminology doesn't add meaning, and it reads like a resume. Plus you could say the same thing with fewer words).

  Duly noted. I will check for inappropriate tone. Sometimes I merely copy from the source to avoid OR and BLP issues. Feel free to point out other examples and/or suggest improvements. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  For that example, do you think I should trim the details and simply say something like "She worked at Hewlett-Packard and the Wuthelam Group, then founded a regional leadership firm, the Centre of Effective Leadership."? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, 'worked at' and 'founded' are both fine and no frills. I didn't have a problem with the level of detail though, just the wording. I assume you mean that you paraphrase rather than copying directly (else you might have copyright/plagarism problems), right? delldot ∇. 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done With the details trimmed, the tone should be fine now. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall well done. delldot ∇. 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough and helpful review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes by Jacklee

• Infobox: Phua is a Member of Parliament – ((Infobox Officeholder)) should be added to the article.

  Is there such a thing as template dyslexia? If so, I should be tested for it. I will let someone else do it. Since the article does not have a photo, is that infobox really needed? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As far as I'm aware there's no guideline which says infoboxes are mandatory, but if there are appropriate ones available most editors do use them. — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done since it is not necessary and my knowledge of templates is about as much as my knowledge of Malay (shame on me). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Date of birth: Her full date of birth should be stated in the article. Again, as Phua is a Member of Parliament, she is a public figure. Furthermore, the information is already in the public domain, on no less than the Parliament of Singapore website.

  Duly noted. I am looking through that source, as it may reveal new information or be able to cite existing information. Will add her birthdate - sourced, of course - once I have done so. Do I need to mention her Chinese name too (the PDF mentions it)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done That reference gives her date of birth as 09.12.1959, which could mean 9 December or 12 September. Although Singapore uses international dates, that is nevertheless ambiguous. I could not find another reliable source which unambiguously states her date of birth (a Google search only turned up several Wikipedia mirrors), so her date of birth should not be mentioned. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If her name in Chinese characters is available, I would add it to the article. — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Chinese name added to lead section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Volunteer work" section:
  • "as of 2008, she is its supervisor". Since school is a singular noun, use its to refer to it, not their.

    I thought schools are collective nouns, which are treated as plurals in British English? An editor above disagreed with the use of "its". Perhaps I should get a third opinion before proceeding. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: This may be a matter of style. While in the UK I did notice that it was fairly common to use plural pronouns for collective nouns, e.g., "The Labour Party announced today that ... They have yet to appoint ..." Personally, I prefer to use singular pronouns because I think plural pronouns look ungrammatical (e.g., "Radical changes are taking place at the school. They are appointing a new principal." Also, there is then no differentiation between, say, school and schools: "Changes are taking place at the affected schools. However, they have yet to appoint new principals." — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done per discussion on talk page - though you should be aware of that, since you participated in that discussion! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The school offers a mainstream curriculum and life skills education to its students."

    Above, [roux] said I should remove the article (then "the") before "mainstream". Since your comments conflict with this, perhaps I should get a third opinion for this too. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I read the sentence as meaning the school offers "a mainstream curriculum" and "life skills education". In this case, mainstream curriculum needs an article before it. Perhaps the is better since there is only one mainstream curriculum. However, maybe Roux read it as meaning the school offers "mainstream curriculum education" and "life skills education", in which case no article is needed. However, this does not seem to me to be a natural reading of the sentence. — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done due to lack of consensus. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A believer in helping autistic people ..."

    Done Changed per your suggestion. Delldot spotte another instance of that. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... neurotypical peers": this is a rather technical word to use. Can you express this more simply?

    Done Delldot commented on this too! Great minds really think alike. Changed to "mainstream students". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... media attention for its impact on students".

    Another collective noun issue; see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Political career" section:
  • "Phua joined the Jalan Besar branch of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) ...": This is the first time since the lead section that you are referring to the PAP, so state the name in full.

    PAP is actually defined in the lead section. Will keep your suggestion in view. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: There's probably no guideline on this, but I generally regard the lead section and main body of the article as two self-contained sections since the lead is meant to summarize the main body. That's why I repeat all terms in full in the main body. — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done Seems unnecessary. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The workgroup suggested the formation of trust funds and Central Provident Fund accounts, and the provision of insurance, for such children".

    Done Changed per your suggestion. The formation of insurance? Oh dear. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Released in February 2007, it contained over 30 proposals ..."

    Done Changed per your suggestion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... led by the Ministry of Education (MOE), as it had more resources and expertise". Again, Ministry of Education is a singular noun.--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another collective noun issue; see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, see above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Vivian Balakrishnan defended the policy ...": consider stating the post that Balakrishnan holds, as this will explain why he spoke up to defend the policy.

    Done The name of his ministerial post is really long! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "O-Level" redirects to "Ordinary Level". Suggest you change this to "[[Ordinary Level|O-Level]]".

    Not sure how necessary this is; will keep your suggestion in view. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: It's not absolutely necessary, but there's no harm in doing it. — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done Seems unnecessary. I would rather address concerns that might affect outcome of the GA review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Red links: If you are intending to nominate this article for GA review, I'd suggest you remove the red links in the article. GA reviewers generally do not like to see red links unless the non-existent articles are due to be created shortly.

  Temporarily done Redlinks removed, though I think they are valid. I could add them back after the review (us Singaporeans are good at gaming the system). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: :-) — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• References:
  • Footnotes are like sentences. They should generally begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop.

    Done What a tedious task. Thankfully, it was as mindless as it was tedious. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Well, it's a nuisance to have to do it retrospectively, but next time you'll know what to do when creating other articles. — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where possible, arrange footnote numbers in numerical order.

    Chenzw mentioned that too. The problem is that reference 11 is for "co-founder" and reference 9 is for "former acting principal". Similarly, reference 17 is for "enrolment increased tenfold" while references 13 and 14 are for "the school attracted media attention for its impact on students". This will be a tough nut to crack. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Well, putting footnote number 11 before number 9 at the end of the sentence doesn't really indicate which fact is supported by which reference anyway. If you want to be really precise you could do it like this: "Phua was co-founder^[11] and former acting principal^[9] of Pathlight School". — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Great suggestion! I thought the MOnSter mandated that references come after punctuation, but it looks like that part of the MOnSter has changed - and that part of the MOnSter is not included in the GA criteria anyway. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where you have cited websites, add the dates you accessed the websites to the citation (add the "accessdate" parameter if you have used citation templates, or "Retrieved on 28 October 2008" if you haven't).

    Done Although I am not sure why they are needed, Giggy mentioned them to, so I have added them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: The justification for this is that websites often change the URLs of pages, or web pages go dead. If an accessdate is added, then at least there is a record of when the web page was consulted. This is a must in academic writing. Also, the date may help in retrieval of the dead web page from an archiving website like http://www.archive.org. In fact, if you think a particular webpage is likely to go dead at some stage, you may want to try archiving it at http://www.webcitation.org/archive. Not all websites allow archiving, though – The Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia do not, for instance, but Today does. Have a look at "Tang Da Wu" to see how I've referred to archived web pages. — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to link the first occurrences of the names of newspapers ("The New Paper", "The Straits Times", "Today"). Also, the newspaper names should be in italics.

    Done An even more tedious task. Could someone please kill the monster? TODAY is a redlink, so I did not wikilink it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: TODAY (shouldn't it be Today?) can be linked to "Today (Singapore newspaper)". — JackLee, 10:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikilink to TODAY added as well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are fairly minor points. Overall, the article is pretty well written. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]