# Talk:Old National Library Building

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

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)

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)


### Old National Library Building