Talk:Visual art of Singapore/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Sorry for the long wait; looking forward to reading it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Hurney: I see that you have never edited this article. The GA nominations page states: "Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article must consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." You also have not edited in quite some time. Are you available and able to respond to GA comments in this review? Are you confident that the article is adequately prepared against the GA criteria? —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this, maybe? It's good that you noticed this was a drive-by before spending alot of time on an in-depth review. (t · c) buidhe 07:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually give it a week, so I'll wait until the weekend's over. But seems like we're headed that way, yes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No response from nominator - close as unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.