Talk:Old National Library Building

Large parts of this article do not have an encyclopedic tone. Some examples:

Talk:Old National Library Building
Good articleOld National Library Building has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 12, 2014Good article nomineeListed
November 3, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 5, 2025Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 30, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Old National Library Building, a much-beloved national icon of Singapore, was demolished despite a rare display of public opposition?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 31, 2024, and March 31, 2025.
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by LastJabberwocky, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 22 May 2025.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Tone problems

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Large parts of this article do not have an encyclopedic tone. Some examples:

  • "the rare display of civic activism on its preservation became a watershed event in generating greater awareness of Singapore's heritage and its conservation in future."
  • The section headline: "Gone but not forgotten"
  • "the city planners got the message loud and clear - To think with the head and heart in future."
  • "as a symbolic gesture of the new connecting with the old and its legacy in the hearts of Singaporeans."

These sound like their coming from a memorial for the building.--Carabinieri 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

As per highlighted concerns, I've make the neccesary amendments on the tone of my article. Thk u for your feedback. -- Aldwinteo 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

References

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Per WP:FOOTNOTE: "Avoid using Ibid or similar abbreviations in footnotes. Other editors who add new references to the article may not take the time to correct Ibid references broken by their addition. Furthermore, not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the term. If a reference is reused in more than one footnote, it is preferable to use the format "Smith, Short Title, 182" rather than "Ibid, 182", so as to avoid these problems, or use named references if appropriate." – Chacor 09:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this has been bugging me too. Anyway, I've fixed it. I actually prefer citing the whole work instead of page numbers, and combining the citations. If there is consensus I will make the change that way. --Rifleman 82 11:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Noted Chacor, am learning along the way. Thk u Rifleman 82 for making the nec amendments earlier & defending my works all these while. -- Aldwinteo 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Old National Library Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 04:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Comment: Interesting article on a historical building, well structured with a generous amount of images, definitely a good article. Acalycine(talk/contribs) 04:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA concerns

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • There are uncited statements, including entire pargaraphs, throughout the article. These have been tagged as such since March 2024.
  • The lead focuses on the controversy and demise of the building, but does not contain much information about its construction or pre-2004 history. I suggest that an additional paragraph be added to include this information.

Is anyone interested in fixing up the article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Old National Library Building

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. charlotte 👸♥ 01:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are uncited statements, including entire pargaraphs, throughout the article. These have been tagged as such since March 2024. The lead focuses on the controversy and demise of the building, but does not contain much information about its construction or pre-2004 history. I suggest that an additional paragraph be added to include this information. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also checked the reviewed version back in 2014 which also had significant portions uncited. Some of the wording is also awkward and unencyclopedic. And yeah, it mainly covers its history and very little of the building design itself. I mean, I've worked on a historical monument Singapore Conference Hall which is modelled upon Epicgenius' work on various NYC landmarks.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.

GA review

Latest comment: 10 months ago83 comments2 people in discussion
Passed. Icepinner 09:36, 5 October 2025 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Old National Library Building/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Actuall7 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Icepinner (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply


I am satisfied this meets the GAN criteria, and shall pass it accordingly. Excellent work on bringing it back to GA, especially for such an important landmark! Icepinner 09:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Description

History

Redevelopment

Aftermath and legacy

Source review

Image review

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.

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.