Talk:Jack Sim

Jack Sim was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 6, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[World Toilet Organization#World Toilet Summit|World Toilet Summits]] Anchor World Toilet Organization#World Toilet Summit links to a specific web page: World Toilet Summit. The anchor (#World Toilet Summit) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Singapore Low‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Sanitation Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The achievements section is a mess and requires references

The achievements section is a mess and requires references (sources) as in-line citations so that the statements can be verified. User:SIM JUEK WAH please add the sources for those achievements that you recently added, thanks. EvMsmile (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Sim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612211932/http://ashoka.org/fellow/4333 to http://ashoka.org/fellow/4333

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. asilvering (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2024 (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:Jack Sim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dawkin Verbier (talk · contribs) 13:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping in to close this as inactive. Feel free to resubmit at any point to get a new reviewer. -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ZyphorianNexus (talk · contribs) 00:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Lead

The lead looks clear and well written. However, how about adding a caption to the image? A simple "Sim in 2017" for example, would do. The Wikipedia Commons file should have more info.

Business career

About the part that says, Sim watched a speech by then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on the social significance of clean public toilets. It feels a bit out of place in the context of his business career, unless it directly affected his decisions and career. You could consider either proving additional context as to its subsequent relevance on his career, or omitting it to streamline the narrative.

Other social ventures

Sim founded BOP Hub, a non-profit organisation targeting bottom-of-pyramid individuals at the poorest global income margins in 2011, developing a $10,000,000 building in Ubi. I'm trying to find a relationship between the building and the rest of the sentence. With the way it's currently structured, I interpret it as BOP Hub being the entity responsible for developing the building. Is that what it means? For clarity's sake, I think it may need rephrasing.

Citations

I've not gone through the citations yet, but if you could add citation(s) to the places that were tagged as needing citation, it would be better.

Status query

@Dawkin Verbier, @ZyphorianNexus, what's the status here? It doesn't look like there's been any movement on the article since the initial review. -- asilvering (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on asilvering's query after over a month: reviewer ZyphorianNexus hasn't edited Wikipedia since 10 May, two days after opening this nomination and nearly three months ago, and nominator Dawkin Verbier hasn't edited the article in those three months to address the issues raised in that review. If nothing has happened to change any of this in the next seven days, my suggestion would be to close the nomination as abandoned. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lack of response since 28 June is enough to call it - I'll just close it as unsuccessful now rather than wait a week. -- asilvering (talk) 00:38, 6 August 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.