Talk:Kent Ridge Park/GA1

GA review

As The_stuart (talk) has not yet been able to begin this GA review, then I will, and hopefully he will be along in due course to add his own observations.

There are two main areas where I think this article needs a little bit more work, the layout of the park and the history. Specifically:

• I haven't got any real idea of the layout of the park from the article, other than that it's 47 ha and 60 metres at its highest point. What's the topography like? Is it on a hillside? Is it mainly flat with a central ridge running through it? Is the ridge the highest point? Is it terraced (because of the crops that were once grown there)? Which part of the park is the bungalow in? How many entrances are there to the park? Where are they? A map or a schematic of the park would be a very useful addition.

 Done. Pse refer to my follow-up edits for details. As for a descriptive map, I've already provided a reference under the 'External links' earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• When did the park open?

 Done. The park was officiated by the former Governor of Singapore, Sir John Fearns Nicoll on 23 February 1954. A commemorative plaque marked the occasion to this day. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The first few sentences of the Plant and animal life section would fit better in the History section I think.

 Done. I agreed too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The idea of the army adopting the park is a strange one to me, and I think needs to be explained. What are the consequences of the army's adoption?

 Done. The SAF adopted the park (see pix here) in support of the NParks 'Adopt A Park' scheme under the auspices of the Garden City Fund, an initiative started by our former Prime Minister & current Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in the 1960s. Due to the park historical significance (See full history here), the army adopted the park not only to fund its upkeep to ensure its memories & natural heritage are being kept well for future generations but also the lessons learnt on the importance of Total Defence too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reference #2 simply repeats the wikilink to the National Heritage Board, leaving the date of "gazetting" unreferenced.

 Done. Thks for spotting the error, 'Ref 2' shld belongs under the 'Reference' section. I've made the necessary correction now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "... it was the site of an opium packing plant owned by the British ...". That implies that it was owned by the British government. Is that the case?

As mentioned by the war museum & other references, the factory (now demolished) was formerly managed by the British East India Company since the 19th century till 1910. For details, u may want to read 'Poh Ern Shih Temple' as mentioned under the 'See also' section earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspected that it might have been the British East India Company. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

According to its history, the BEIC's opium trail never ceased from its origins in India but spread over later to China (See 'Opium War') & to the former colonies in South East Asia, which was done "in the name of free trade or Her Majesty's Service". As such, I was not surprised when it was featured (though the story was mainly fictional) as one of the chief antagonists depicted by Hollywood in the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy in recent years. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article says that Bukit Chandu is a hill within the park. Is that where the war museum is? The Bukit Chandu web site mentions an old Ford factory. Is that there too?

The war museum is on the mentioned hill but not the Old Ford Factory (it's not related to the opium plant mentioned in the article). Bukit Chandu was also known as 'Point 226' by the British Army during WWII, where the Malay Regiments defended the hill bravely but were massacred in the end. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of its historcial info were removed earlier (at 40% of total content) by the previous reviewer which was deemed 'unnecessary' (See above discussion for details). The external link u saw earlier point to another site named 'Memories at Old Ford Factory', another war museum that is managed by the same entity (National Archives of S'pore) at Bukit Timah in the central part of S'pore, not in Kent Ridge Park itself. Fyi, the Old Ford Motor Factory was where Lt-Gen Arthur Ernest Percival signed the historic surrender of Malaya & Singapore on 15 Feb 1942 after the infamous Battle of Singapore, an event described by Sir Winston Churchill as the 'worst disaster' and 'largest capitulation' in British history back then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The park's facilities include fitness stations ...". That's not a term that's familiar to me, I think it needs a little explanation.

'Fitness stations' (as mentioned officially here) or 'fitness corners' refer to the on-site fitness amenities that helps the locals to do physical exercises such as chin-ups, leg-raise, log-lifting etc -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "From this lookout point, a panoramic view of the coast of Pasir Panjang and some of the southern islands such as Pulau Bukom is visible, and Pulau Duran Darat on a clear day." None of these places mean anything to me. How far away is the coast of Pasir Panjang and the islands, in what direction?

 Done. Pse refer to my follow-up edits for details. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1995, the park was gazetted by the National Heritage Board ...". What does gazetted mean? Designated?

Yes, it means 'designated' in another definition. 'Gazetted' was used here as it was officially quoted this way in the press & in their guides earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is likely not a complete list of issues to be addressed, and The stuart may well want to add to them. It's enough though, I think, to get this GA review process formally underway, so I'm going to put this article on hold now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the problems caused by the previous reviewer's insistence that material about the Battle of Bukit Chandu be removed, but I do think that he was right, even though it has left this article a little on the short side. But shortness isn't a problem for GA, so long as the article has a good coverage of its subject. And so I have a few more questions:

• "Formerly used to house senior officers ...". From the context I'd guess that's British Army officers? Needs to be clarified anyway.

 Done. Yup, the folks were from the British Army. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still not clear what paths there are through the park apart from the canopy way.

 Done. Pse refer to my follow-up edits for details. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• How many people visit the park each year?

Sorry, no such figures are available from NParks or other available sources. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have to pay to get into the park?

No, been FOC all these while. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is it open all year round? Does it open and close at certain times of the day?

It opens daily all year round including public holidays. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Are there any events held in the park?

 Done. Yes, eco-tours, battle/heritage tours, birdwatching tours are organised regularly by volunteers and tour agencies for students, war veterans(UK/Oz/NZ)[1] and the general public alike.[2] -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Today, the park is being managed by the NParks" What's the NParks? Needs to be explained.
• The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article now that it's about the park, not the battle.

 Done.

• "... most of the men were massacred ..." Massacred is a pretty strong word. Is it supported by the source?

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Equally known like the Battle of Waterloo in Britain or the Attack on Sydney Harbour (I'm a former Aussie grad from NSW), the Battle of Bukit Chandu is not only commonly known to Singaporeans as we learnt its history as part of our O-Levels exams, but also by our neighbouring Malaysians ('cos of the involvment of their Royal Malay Regiment) & the annual homage by WWII veterans & their families. Besides the mentioned source from the war museum, it's also supported by in-text citations/references by Yap, Lee, Foong and the National Archives of S'pore shld anyone is interested to check out their books for in-depth study. For online citation, u can chk this out at Infopedia by S'pore National Library Board. Fyi, the event of the battle not only lead to the massacre of the 159 survivors of the Malay Regiments, but also the horrific Alexandra Hospital Massacre soon after. If u r interested to find out more about the atrocities committed during the Japanese Occupation of S'pore, do read the Kempeitai East District Branch & its links under 'See also' too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A fascinating story.

Yes, it's the touching stories of the human spirit in times of adversity that moved me to write about them in Wikipedia. See 'Changi Murals' concerning a British POW which I wrote previously. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

As it looks like The stuart will not be joining us for this review I think that we ought to try and wrap it up now. I'm sorry to have to say that I do still have a few reservations before I can feel happy about slapping that little green dot on this article, but none that I don't think can be dealt with easily and quickly. I'll list them in the order in which I see their importance:

• My biggest problem is in reconciling the references.

• Note #1 lists "Foong, "Fighting the Enemy in Pasir Panjang: The Role of the Malay Regiment", p. 295.". In the References section I see "# Foong, Choon Han (1997). The Price of Peace—True Accounts of the Japanese Occupation. Singapore: Asiapac Booksooks. ISBN 981-3068-53-1." So I'm assuming that this is a form of Harvard referencing, but because the titles don't match I'm left wondering if it's one book or two. Is "Fighting the Enemy in Pasir Panjang: The Role of the Malay Regiment" a chapter title? Anyway, I'd strongly suggest either using the author/book title or author/publication year in the Notes section to make the match more obvious.

 Done. Yes, I'm using the Harvard referencing model in all my writings all along. The 'Note 1' refers to the specific chapter/section & pg no. where the info was quoted in relation to the references listed below. It's also the style adopted by our National Library Board & the National Archives of Singapore seen during my earlier research. I've added the 'year' portion now to avoid any confusion just in case. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't see what publication Note #2 is referring to; "National Heritage Board, "Battle of Pasir Panjang", p. 5."

If u check closely, it refers to Ref 1. Do amend if nec. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The final entry in the References section doesn't give any publication details at all: "Reflections at Bukit Chandu. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore."

 Done. It refers specifically to the war museum & I've amended it for clarity now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't think that enough is being said about the park. The NParks site talks about a number of ponds, wild turtles, and twenty fitness centres. That kind of information really needs to be included.

 Done. I've added the abv details but I do not specify the exact qty earlier as such figures may change over time, i.e. upgrading, removals etc in future. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Battle of Pasir Panjang is just dropped into The park today section (I don't think that section titles should start with "the" anyway, but that needs to be checked) without any explanation. It needs to be explained where that battle took place (was it in the park, if so where?), and how it relates to the Battle of Bukit Chandu.

Fyi, the Battle of Chandu also refers to the Battle of Pasir Panjang. I've added an intro on this in the lead to avoid any confusion. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• "When the first settlers arrived in Singapore in the early 19th century ...". Does this mean the first European settlers, the first British settlers, or something else?

As per references cited, this info was not specially mentioned whether the first settlers were the Malay natives, Chinese immigrants or the European settlers before a British fortress (now demolished) was built sometime in the 1930s. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's about it. The references issue really is a showstopper at the moment; the other issues can be dealt with pretty easily I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather amused that u added a supernatural element into the article as per 'Note 9'. Is such info necessary? Even though some of the historical sites that I've visited are known for such hauntings (I personally had some 'unearthly' encounters before esp at the Japanese Cemetery Park) during my previous site visits & interviews, I've not mentioned this aspect at all in all my history/heritage writings to date not just to uphold the integrity of the article but also as a mark of respect to the deceased. (I usually asked for 'permission' & offered prayers before entering certain 'hot spots' alone). May I know what is the specific vol no. (there're 17 volumes of his books known to date,[3]), chapter & pg no. of your earlier references in line of the referencing issues u highlighted above? -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for making those changes, especially to the references. Adding the date makes it clearer that it's the book in the bibliography that's being referenced and not some other book by the same author. I assume that the title you've given in the citation is the chapter title? Anyway, you'll be even more relieved than me to hear that I'm now going to list this article as a GA. It's been difficult, I know, because of all the WWII material about the battle that was taken out, but I think that this is now a reasonable coverage of the park itself, given its close historical connections with that war.

In reply to your very fair questions about the ghost story I added, you are of course quite right to pick up on the reference not giving a specific volume or page number. When you lived in Australia you may have come across the English saying "Do as I say, not as I do." :-) To be honest I didn't even realise that there were 17 volumes, I thought it would be just one book. I copied the information and reference directly from the Battle of Pasir Panjang article without really giving it much thought. To answer your general question though, yes, I would include relevant ghost stories where appropriate and they can be sourced, as I think it adds a bit of colour. But obviously I quite understand if it might be felt to be in any way improper in this case that it should be removed.

So well done on producing another nice GA on a subject that not too many of us outside of your part of the world are likely to be very familiar with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fyi, the area from the canopy walk all the way to the war museum was the scene where many of the Japanese invaders & defenders perished during the 1942 battle. According to some eye-witness's account disclosed on condition of anonymity & also similar stories published in the later volumes of the book u cited earlier, 'accidents' & 'sightings' were previously reported when boisterous behaviour or unrespectful words were uttered near the vicinity. As such, I hope u appreciate my earlier query & statement made on 'permission sought' & offering of prayers (Metta chants) mentioned earlier (Background of the Metta Sutta chant here). u may want to read on a legendary mountain in M'sia named Gunung Ledang & its associated myths [4] ('no pork allowed', 'peace to those who enter with good heart' etc according to their locals & park rangers). It's only 1276m high, but has claimed the lives of many youths from M'sia & S'pore to date. Once again, I thank u for your time, high-quality copyedits & review in passing this artcle as GA status mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand the point that you've made about respect and the offering of prayers. My only defence is that I'm English. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)