# Talk:Istana Park


### Istana Park
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be GA and it's out of my scope so I would like some comments on it, particularly from Wikipedians who frequently work on park-related articles.
Thanks, Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  15:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)


#### actuall7
Hey @Icepinner:, while I may not be a parks expert, I hope to still be able to offer you some suggestions. Please hold for my comments. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Actuall7: Thank you so much! Should I perhaps review Yusof Ishak for you? My only problem is that it's a massive article and I wouldn't be able to provide meaningful comments compared to shorter-length articles. Regarding our conversation on Anderson Bridge (Singapore)'s GAN review, I have decided to work on some of our national monuments. I have recently expanded The Cenotaph, Singapore and would like some general feedback from you (our national monuments editor), if that's not too big of a request. Still, thanks for taking an interest in reviewing this article. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  08:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
@Icepinner: I don't mind giving The Cenotaph a look as well, and would appreciate if you reviewed Yusof Ishak, but I am by no means forcing you to. We are looking forward to a possible FA nom for Yusof sometime this year, to coincide with Singapore's 60th year of independence celebrations, and any comments are appreciated. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 02:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Have just checked The Cenotaph and did a few copyedits, not many issues on that article. Did find this JSTOR source on The Cenotaph, and while I have not read it thoroughly, it could help with adding some information. You should check it out. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Greatly appreciated. I was really worried about its clarity, since that has been an issue of mine (Bedok Lighthouse...). The JSOTR source is also particularly useful, will add it later. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  05:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Have done subsequent copyedits to both The Cenotaph and Bedok Lighthouse, and I think the issues at Bedok Lighthouse should be resolved now; I have also removed the tag. These are all relatively short articles, so I don't mind checking them all out. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Wow. I wasn't expecting you to do it for Bedok Lighthouse but either way, I give you my sincere thanks. Greatly appreciate your efforts :) Is there any articles you would me to review as quid pro quo? As mentioned above, I would give Yusof Ishak a review as a form of gratitude but I don't have much experience in FAC and it's a rather large article so I'll leave it to the FAC regulars. Do you want me to comment on 141 Neil Road? The nomination seems to have stalled and I wouldn't mind providing GA reviews for short articles (up to ~30-40 sources).Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  10:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
It's no worries. The Bedok Lighthouse article is actually quite short, so I'm not sure why it was flagged for prose issues; I only fixed up a few minor ones, but found no real glaring issues. For the 141 Neil Road GAN, I have actually accidentally forgotten about it, and it seems that the reviewer has as well, so I will first see if they're up to continue the review. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
@Actuall7 I also didn't really get why it was flagged for prose issues. Anyways, I do have some comments I would like to make for 141 Neil Road regarding some minor stuff like the infobox and prose. Do you want me to add said comments to the review page? Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  06:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
I personally don't mind you continuing the review or adding your own comments. I'm not so sure about the original reviewer though, so maybe drop them a reply first that you have some things you want to note. Kinda like in a drive-by comment. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 06:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Here are my comments:

Earwig gives a 29.6% chance of copyvio, which while not high, there are a few phrases which could certainly be rewritten. You should look it through and make changes accordingly.
 Done. Got it to 10.7%
Per WP:OL, a few terms can be unlinked, such as countries like Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, and other terms like park and horticulture.
 Done
In the lead, the links for Civic District and the Istana are repeated twice, while in the history section, the link to Plaza Singapura is repeated twice.
 Done
The link to Penang Road links to a road of the same name in Malaysia, not the Penang Road in Singapore, which currently doesn't have an article.
Whoops.  Done
Parks and Recreation Department can be linked to National Parks Board.
 Done
The link to Heritage Trail should be to Heritage trail.
 Done
the Istana Heritage Gallery, located at Istana Park, was officially opened -> I don't see the point of mentioning that the Istana Heritage Gallery is in Istana Park, seems like something that could be inferred.
 Done
as well as Istana Park to be expanded three times its size by including Dhoby Ghaut Green and Penang Road Open Space in its redesign. -> Wording of this sentence feels off, but I'm not really sure how to edit it.
Rewrote it myself, hopefully it reads better.
There are also plans to pedestrianise and called by NParks last month should be phrased in past tense -> There were also plans to pedestrianise and called by NParks in August.
 Done
"Istana" means palace in Malay -> Per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, should be: Istana means palace in Malay.
 Done
The park has several features and There are several buildings within the park might be WP:SYNTH, but I have not checked the sources.
Thought it was okay under WP:BLUESKY but I may have misinterpret it. I don't mind getting rid of it if there aren't any sources that say so.
Checking the sources, this sentence: The park has several features does appear to be in the source, while this sentence: There are several buildings within the park isn't confirmed as accurately, so it should be removed/rewritten.
I don't think the mention of plant names have to be capitalised. They can be left in lowercase.
 Done
as Queensland, Australia for -> Per MOS:GEOCOMMA: as Queensland, Australia, for
 Done
The "parks" in List of parks in Singapore shouldn't be capitalised.
 Done
For the references, citations with the titles in all caps should be changed to title case, see MOS:ALLCAPS.
I'm aware that it's required for FAC but I don't think it's necessary for GAN. I don't mind doing it if you want
Hm, I'm also not so sure whether it is a hundred percent necessary, but I have gone in and done it myself anyways.
[24] should have the author as Heng, Melissa.
 Done
That's all the issues I could find. Will do a few little copyedits as well. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Actuall7: done. Could you feview my copyedits for Earwig? I fear some of them may not be "clear" since Earwig did highlight common phrases and I thus had to change some of them so that Earwig wouldn't flag it as a potential copyvio.
Looks better, and I see no issues with your copyedits. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Great, thank you so much! Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  06:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)