Jump to content

Talk:Bukit Batok Memorial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBukit Batok Memorial was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 12, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 5, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Bukit Batok Memorial was built by Australian POWs to honor the war dead of the Japanese and Allies from Singapore's Battle of Bukit Timah?

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bukit Batok Memorial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 21:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this article, I don't believe it can achieve GA-class without a lot of extra work. My initial comments:

Lead

  • "tranquil" - non-encyclopedic language.
  • the lead states that Australian POWs built the memorials but the "Allies' Memorial Cross" section refers to an English bombardier, so presumably some British POWs contributed as well.
  • I suggest clarifying the location as being in Singapore closer to the start of the first sentence, rather than right at the end.

History

  • Probably could do with a bit more geographical discussion particularly as the next section refers to the MacRitchie Reservoir. Also a sentence summarising the Malayan campaign would provide greater context as well.

Allies' Memorial Cross

  • The section heading gives too much weight to one portion of this section. Only two sentences in the entire section specifically relate to the Allies' memorial. I would suggest renaming this section Construction or something similar and then deal with the two memorials separately.
  • The first sentence is confusing due to referring to POWs building three memorials, two of which are identified as the Indian National Army memorial and Syonan Jinja. This then leaves one unnamed memorial which presumably must be one of the Allies' Memorial or Syonan Chureito. This means four memorials built with POW labour. As I say, confusing.
  • POW should be written out in full on first usage.
  • "Japanese engineering commander-in-charge": I don't understand what this title is, the "engineering" is particularly confusing.
  • Artillery and Infantry should be lower case.
  • Did the Allies' Memorial have a plaque or the like? If so, what did the inscription read?
  • The final sentence lacks a cite.

Syonan Chureito

  • Again, the heading may place too much weight on the Japanese memorial as this section also discusses the Allies' Memorial. I think the content needs to be re-ordered.
  • This section starts off with a description of a, for lack of a better word, opening ceremony for the shrine. But the description of the shrine follows this; I think this should be reordered. I wonder if an opening ceremony or similar heading would be more appropriate.
  • fame - used twice in this article, possibly non-encyclopedic language.
  • solemn - possibly non-encyclopedic language.
  • Were the Allied POWs allowed to visit their Memorial Cross?
  • The final sentence lacks a cite.

Postwar years

  • Why does this section mention the Syonan Jinja memorial? This article isn't about that memorial.
  • Is the area now a park or reserve? The image of the stairs suggest it is open access.

Memorial plaque installed

  • This is a two sentence section, one sentence of which has nothing to do with the memorial plaque. I suggest combining this section under the previous, more generic Postwar heading.
    Done Sections merged. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Also

References

  • For notes 4 and 7, the publications are not listed in the bibliography (place of publication, ISBN needed for note 7 as well).
  • The Lee entry in the bibliography is not cited at all (unless it is note 4 and "War Memorials and Shrines" is the chapter?)

External links

Other stuff

In conclusion, I believe this will need a lot of work to bring it up to GA-class. I should note that the above are just my initial comments; I will have a closer look at the prose once the nominating editor deals with the issues I have already noted. I will check back in a week to assess progress and determine if this should be closed. Zawed (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few things have been addressed and not much has happened since then. I will looking to close this in a couple of days as a fail. Zawed (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further inspection, I agree with you that the article is too far from meeting the GA criteria and should be failed. Thanks for your review and I may make the requested improvements at a later date. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]