Talk:Hwa Chong Institution

Content

We should try to build up on the content, and also the format of the article, such that it is comparable to the pages on other top schools, such as Stanford University, Oxford University and Cambridge University. And to achieve this, irrelevant information will have to be put on other subpages or removed, while important information retained. -- minghan 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

- Reply: I agree. I don't see the names of names of representatives of their student government bodies being placed on their articles. It makes our people look arrogant and egoistic.

Some words are not very academic. For example:

"Today, it is one of the finest educational institutions for high-achievers and the gifted in the region. Its reputation as a premier school is based not only on the academic excellence of the students but also their determination to excel in all other areas like leadership, sports and games, co-curricular activities, science research, and service to the community.

Please back up with more info. Under whose ranking system place HC as the top among all the other schools? MOE? Please follow the guideline under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoughsaid05 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge

There is no basis to merge this article with The Chinese High School.

Exactly. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Can someone upload some pictures? -- minghan 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And maps too. The official website is pathetic. Can't find much information at all. Didn't they realised that the school compound is so big. People can get lost easily. Should at least provide a detailed map for those visiting the first time.

Too pro-council?

Neutrality of article is disputed.

Infobox?

I think HCI is the only Singapore-institution that does not use the Singapore School infobox. For standardisation purposes, change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Toad (talk • contribs) 12:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:VANITY and WP:NPOV

Please, this is NOT the place to promote your consortiums. Go read the above 2 wikipedia policies. Frankchn 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Lots of unncessary names also. -- mh 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Following Jonseng's violation of the NPOV policy, I would like to remind editors that Wikipedia articles should follow a neutral point-of-view. As Frankchn has mentioned earlier, this is not a place where you advertise yourself, regardless of your various achievements. Thank you. Angcr (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New structure to article

I would like to propose a new structure to the article. The new skeleton of the article will follow this structure. However, the information regarding Council, Consortiums etc will still be kept. What I hopefully will change is the introduction of new sections, such as Notable Alumni, Curriculum etc. Feel free to share your views here. Thank you. Angcr (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-assess for Schools Project

This article needs proper references before it can qualify as a B class article so I've changed the rating to C class. It is however seemingly a very important school with important alumni. I've upgraded it to high importance. Please come back for a re-assessment when you have added some references as this is potentially a top importance school. As well as adding references you need to work on cutting out some of the trivia. You should also check the copyright status of the school song lyrics. Dahliarose (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable staff and alumni section

I noticed that recently a number of unregistered users are vandalising the staff and alumni section. Based on their edits, I suspect that they are from the high school. They have added their teachers (eg Mrs Teo CC, Mr Tan HC) and their classmates to the list out of sheer mischief. These people whose names they've added are not notable enough to be on the list. Lonelydarksky (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not about who finds it notable or not. It's about how relevant it is to the article. Under your rationale, we could just add a list of every teacher, administrator, technical specialist, landscaper and janitor in Hwa Chong. Would that be necessary? --Chinkeeyong (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is any wish on the alumni part to praise any of the teachers, be it from high school or college, they can do so by writing a commendation letter to the school or throwing a party for whichever teacher they admire the most, but not here! This is simply abuse of space —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoughsaid05 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV, Trival Information and page protection

A lot of information can be left out like the songs, too trivial. The section on Information Technology Facilities should be rewritten, too much like an advertisement. Really, the whole article has to be reviewed and rewritten, and I am filing a semi-protection request so that... teachers don't edit the page. Coolzgeek (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

general cleanup

I have pruned many unencyclopedic lists of information. Please discuss before reverting. Thanks Overmage (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of certain information

Please take a look at this. Bali ultimate removed certain entire sections of the article. To avoid an edit war, I suggest we discuss here and arrive at a general consensus before proceeding to implement the changes on the article.

I do not agree with the removal of the school culture part. I don't think the information there is trivia. How do you expect us to provide a reference for the school uniform? I don't mind taking a picture of my old set of the uniform and upload it here. Does that count as a reference? The pages of other Singaporean schools also include a section about their discipline systems. I don't see any reason why the discipline section should be removed. There are sources available for citation. The guidelines on discipline are in the school student's handbook, I believe? That should count as a reference.

The school councils part is indeed trivia to some extent, but I think it is still relevant to the article. A trim might be better than removing it completely. _LDS (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll need WP:RS for everything that might go in the article. You will also need to consider WP:WEIGHT as well. No a picture of your old school uniform does not count as a reliable source for anything. School handbook? Not really. Again, read WP:RS.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of the source and its basis depends on the context, as stated in WP:RS. I believe that your reason for removing those sections is that they are not supported by reliable sources? For the discipline section, I think the only possible references available for citation are the school handbook and the discipline guidelines from the MOE teacher's handbook (if I can get my hands on it). In this context, I think it's acceptable to use the school handbook as a reference. In what way is it not reliable? In my opinion, the school uniform section is important to this article. How can that be absent from an article on any school? Same question again: How do you expect me to find a supporting reference for the school uniform? The uniform is just as it is. _LDS (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, you need reliable sources for everything. As for "discipline" if no reliable source has taken notice, that's an indication it would be of undue weight to mention it. I don't care what's important "in your opinion." If there is reliable sourcing for what's up with the uniforms, no problem. If there isn't, keep it out. Your say so and personal memorabilia don't cut it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't think you've answered my questions yet. I'll make them clearer here.

1. Why is the school handbook not a reliable source for the discipline section?
2. What kind of references do you think might be suitable for the school uniform section? _LDS (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary, mostly. Also, could be out of date. Also, not generally available in any librarys so there'd be no way to check. A few other basic research reasons. Basically, if independent reliable sources havne't taken not of something, then we shouldn't either. THe only reason this article still persists sans sources is because of a convention that all schools are "inherently" notable. I'm sure some basic facts and background can be found in the school in singapore -- maybe even the Straits TImes online. Good luck hunting for sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view, It's not that the school handbook is unreliable, it's that it is not available. Many schools have that kind of information (discipline, etc.) on line, in which case it can be cited with a link to the relevant page on the school's website. Unfortunately, HCI does not put such information on its website. Its printed handbook presumably is not normally accessible to the general public in libraries, etc. so there is no way an ordinary Wikipedia reader would be able to verify it. You need to get your school to put the information on its website first.

Such information is to be found in many school articles on WP without proper sources (I think they are often written from personal knowledge by students at the school in question), but once another editor challenges it you will be in difficulty if you cannot provide a source. When [User:Bali ultimate] says "You'll need WP:RS for everything that might go in the article", that is a very rigid reading of the rules, which clearly has not been applied "to the letter" to many school articles in the past, but if people insist on applying them strictly there isn't much you can do.

I agree that an article about a school should be able to include information about its uniform. I had an argument on this point about six months months ago at WikiProject Schools [1] in which I referred particularly to Singapore. I cannot really see what would be wrong with your taking a picture of some HCI students in their uniforms, maybe standing in front of the school buildings with the school name visible in the picture, and uploading that as a source.

-- Alarics (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Bali ultimate says "Basically, if independent reliable sources havne't taken not of something, then we shouldn't either". I don't think that can be applied to Singapore, where there are no independent media sources. There are three English-language papers (Straits Times, New Paper, Today) and they all belong to the government, which runs almost all the schools. If a local school board in the USA decides to change its discipline rules, that will be discussed at an open meeting of the school board, which gets reported in the local press, which you can then quote. That is not at all how things work in Singapore. Discipline in schools only gets mentioned in the press when some problem arises or complaints are made about a particular incident, and even then they usually don't mention the name of the school so as not to embarrass it. WP ought to allow some leeway in such a case, otherwise it is guilty of Systemic bias, see WP:WORLDVIEW. -- Alarics (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I lived in Singapore for years. Yes, the press is controlled there, but will be a good source for basic information on schools. Scholars and the foreign press operate relatively freely in the Lion City, as i'm sure you're aware. As for "discipline" if you're telling me that no reliable sources address the issue well, then, we won't either. If they do, then we will. It's that simple, and the nature of singapore has nothing to do with it. If there aren't reliable sources, the accuracy of the information is more questionable, the whole point of the policy. My last word on the matter: If a piece of info isn't reliably sourced, then it doesn't belong. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You say "The nature of Singapore has nothing to do with it", but earlier you said "I'm sure some basic facts and background can be found in the school in singapore -- maybe even the Straits TImes online" and I was trying to explain why that is in fact extremely unlikely. The Straits Times is not, actually, "a good source for basic information on schools" of the kind we are talking about. And incidentally it is only freely available on line for about two weeks after publication, beyond which you have to pay hundreds of dollars. -- Alarics (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you actually saying that since the singapore government practices censorship and owns the Times that if it had an article saying "Hwa Chong was founded in 19xx by so-and-so and is considered something or other" this would be unreliable? Nonesense. I don't care that it's not available on line. Go to a library and do some research. Again, no information without reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, of course it might say that kind of thing, but the self-censorhip point is that the ST will not usually write anything about discipline at individual named schools. Unlike newspapers in western democracies, it is not there to challenge and question the authorities, it IS the authorities. I agree that a news citation doesn't have to be on line. I'm always pointing that out to people myself. But back issues of the Straits Times are difficult to research unless you are a millionaire because without a word-searchable archive (or a knowledge of a particular date on which something might have been reported) you would never find anything on a particular individual school without spending hundreds of hours ploughing through thousands of individual print issues in the library, since as far as I have ever discovered, it doesn't publish an index. -- Alarics (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would want to waste time searching for needles in haystacks. It's ridiculous to ask for a reference (in words) for the school uniform. A picture paints a thousand words, that's my point, so I think a picture is fine for verification. Since you insist that a picture is not appropriate, then what sort of references do you think might be suitable for the school uniform section? I think we should talk about possible solutions instead, rather than bickering over the problems. I'm fine with removing the councils section since a large portion of it is OR._LDS (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck finding reliable sources. If you don't understand why a personal photo is useless for an artcile that makes claims about current practice, past practice, and evolution of practice, then i can't help you. Every unsourced scrap is unreliable. Good luck with sourcing.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be more specific with the "claims about current practice, past practice, and evolution of practice". If you referring to this article, please point out those "claims" so that editors can make the necessary corrections to prevent them from being removed by certain people. Maybe they've already been removed. You haven't answered my question above. I think that your response will be a valuable piece of advice for me when I embark on my "quest" for reliable sources._LDS (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's play a game: What information in the article do you want to use your personal photos to support?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The school uniform. Alarics gave a description above about how the photos may be used as sources. _LDS (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What exact text do you propose to be followed with ?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way I intend to do it. I intend to restore part of the original text that was removed and put the picture beside it. The picture gives a visual image of the uniform and helps readers interpret the written description better. _LDS (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A picture "beside it" is not a refrecence. But out of curiosity, what text exactly? Paste it here.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's how it goes with a couple of photos (with captions) beside it:

The uniform for boys in Sec 1 to Sec 3 is khaki short trousers and a white short-sleeved shirt with four brass buttons (two on the shoulders and one on each breast pocket). For boys in Sec 4 to JC 2, the attire is beige short-sleeved shirt and long trousers. Girls in JC 1 to JC 2 wear a beige short sleeved blouse and skirt. In addition, students wear the school collar pin, bearing the school logo, on their left collar. The sports attire, worn by both students from high school and college sections during PE lessons or other school activities, consists of a white T-shirt (yellow and red sides) with the school's name printed on the front (in English) and back (in Traditional Chinese), and black shorts with the school's logo.

_LDS (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm "the uniform for tktktkt is?" Based on a photo of a uniform from what year? How will the picture make clear that one uniform is for sec 1 to sec 3 that another uniform is for sec 4 to JC 2 and that girls have entirely different uniforms. Furthermore, what's all this about sports attire, and the years it's worn, and all that? None of that text can be supported by a simple photo, or a series of photos. It's trivia for a general encyclpedia at this level, anyway, but at minimum you'll need reliable sources. If it's important to you, i suggest you get down to the national library (pity the old one on stamford road was shut) or some other library and get cracking.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting more and more ridiculous. Obviously, the photo of the school uniform I'm going to upload is the one worn by current students, and the same for the sports attire. I can go to the school museum and snap some photos of the old uniforms as well. _LDS (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is silly. Just read WP:RS. You will be attaching a whole lot of claims to these pictures not verifiable through reliable sources (and on a matter of trivial importance). I'm sure there are reliable sources that say something about the uniforms. If it's so important to you, i suggest you track some reliable sources down. The current argument to ignore sourcing policies won't lead anywhere. Get thee to a library!Bali ultimate (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the uniform is of particular interest at this particular school because of not allowing boys to wear long trousers until sec4, which makes it unusual in Singapore. -- Alarics (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, expressed with an eye towards the basic standards of this encyclopedia: "Actually the uniform is of particular interest at this particular school because of not allowing boys to wear long trousers until sec4, which makes it unusual in Singapore." Come up with reliable sources for these claims, and the problem goes away.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-assessment

I am assessing this article following a request at WP:WPSCH/A#R. I have decided to keep the existing rating of C / High. Some parts of the article are rather good, such as the lead and the history section. The use of pictures also makes the article look a lot better. The biggest weakness of the article however is a lot of gaps in references. In the "Academics" and "School culture" sections for instance, there are large amounts of text without any references. The "Consortiums and faculties" section also reads as a little promotional and at times looks like a personal analysis e.g. "Life in both the consortium and faculty is more than just curricular education; they offer differing programmes of their own - such as exchange programmes and student bonding activities." The "Clubs and societies" section also has this issue e.g. "While traditionally not as highly regarded as the sports and uniformed groups CCAs, many of these clubs/societies have performed well in competitions." Says who? An example is given, but this is still expressing a viewpoint beyond what a source says so this violates WP:NOR. On the infobox, per WP:MISSION and WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI, mission statements should not be included. CT Cooper · talk 14:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The List of Hwa Chong Institution people has large gaps in its referencing which needs to be fixed per WP:BLP. This school also has a number of sub-articles which if notable need to show it more with better referencing and a more encyclopaedic focus, such articles include Student Leaders Convention and Hwa Chong Institution High School Band.

Finally, I don't see any reason to change the existing high-importance rating. The article is clearly important enough for high, but is not at the level required for top-importance. CT Cooper · talk 14:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Was looking more at raising quality rating rather than importance rating. Still, I quite agree with your assessment; the article needs more references to be credible. I'll do my best and improve this article; other editors, if you're reading, do also contribute too! Thanks, AngChenrui (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hwa Chong Institution/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 04:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not big on education articles, but given how your last review went and how long you waited for it I'll take a shot at this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Before I delve into this, there's four tagged deadlinks that should be fixed, and there may be more; check with the tool on the side of this review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The dead links are caused by a revamp of the official website of Hwa Chong Institution. One link has been resolved and the rest will be done over the weekend. Perhaps you could give the previous reviewer, Thehistorian10, some feedback on his review? Although he missed that and raised several invalid concerns, I believe he was acting in good faith and shows potential as a reviewer. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

All four tagged deadlinks have been dealt with. Could we proceed with the review? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, here's the rest of my concerns:

• There are a good deal more deadlinks that I found: see here.
• A good number of the online refs need access dates.
• "With an enrolment of " enrollment
• "The school enrols an" enrolls. If it actually does contain one l in Singapore then never mind this, but I don't think it does.
• ", a 400-metre track, a hall," could a hall be made more specific?
• "of 4 batches of students" of four

Up to the academics section, will review the rest as soon as I can. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Access dates have been added for online references which lacked them. "Enrolment" is British spelling, which is used in Singapore. Also changed "hall" to "multi-purpose hall" and "4" to "four". Working on the remaining dead links. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the final issues I found:

• Try and keep secondaries consistent in both capitalization and numbering; I see Secondary One, secondary four, and Secondary 1 and 4. All three should use the same format.
• "There is one international leadership conferences hosted by HCI, the Hwa Chong Asia-Pacific Young Leaders Summit." conference. Also, the sentence feels like it could be cut in half for brevity yet say the same thing, try rewording it.
• " into its fourth year since its inception in 2006" wouldn't it be more than four years then? Actually, there's a couple spots that use the "in its x year" format; I would remove all of them to prevent unnecessary dating of the article. For "Currently into its 39th year,", I'd just replace with when it was founded.
• "is a fillip to IT usage in the school." I'd reword, fillip is a bit rare of a word, though a change isn't required.

I'll put the article on hold and will pass when these issues are addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have resolved all issues, including the remaining dead links. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good now, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2016 Merge

I noticed that a bold merge was carried out (Diffs:[2], [3], [4]) by Lyg 2001. I have reverted it for the time being as I feel there needs to be more discussion about this. Personally, I don't see a real need to merge the article. The previously constituent organisations The Chinese High School (Singapore) and Hwa Chong Junior College are both independently notable enough to have their own article. They also have enough content in the articles which is harder to squeeze here without violating WP:UNDUE. As such it is preferable if they continue to have their own article while the "main article" template can be used to link to it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

PS:Unfortunately, my revert has also led to a loss of the copyediting done to the article. I will reinstate the copyedits manually myself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Hwa Chong Institution High School Band

There was an old merge template on Hwa Chong Institution High School Band. The band is not independently notable, so a merge is fine here. However, there is hardly any secondary sources about the band and I am unable to find any as well. It would also be WP:UNDUE to merge that much information. As a result, I am redirecting Hwa Chong Institution High School Band to Hwa Chong Institution. The article history can still be accessed by any interested editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done the redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hwa Chong Institution. 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/20100701173657/http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_839_2004-12-28.html to http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_839_2004-12-28.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130102105332/http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2008/02/enhanced-programmes-by-special.php to http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2008/02/enhanced-programmes-by-special.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hwachong.edu.sg/ViewBreakingNews.asp?BID=167
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228225105/http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MjU%3D-A6CDSUT8mNk%3D to http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MjU%3D-A6CDSUT8mNk%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hci.edu.sg/ViewBreakingNews.asp?BID=202

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) 03:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hwa Chong Institution. 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/20090308033311/http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_978_2006-06-16.html to http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_978_2006-06-16.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211122442/http://app.mica.gov.sg/Data/0/PDF/1_PMB%20Monuments-2006.pdf to http://app.mica.gov.sg/Data/0/PDF/1_PMB%20Monuments-2006.pdf

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) 05:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hwa Chong Institution. 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/20110928184957/http://www.hcibs.edu.sg/Facilities.html to http://www.hcibs.edu.sg/Facilities.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110818171757/http://isphs.hc.edu.sg/getfile.asp?ID=648 to http://isphs.hc.edu.sg/getfile.asp?ID=648
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501145038/http://www.hci.edu.sg/advantage/a-global-academy/internationalization to http://www.hci.edu.sg/advantage/a-global-academy/internationalization

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) 06:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hwa Chong Institution/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article does not meet the good article criteria. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section does not appropriately summarize the contents of the article. Several passages are not sources, in failure of WP:V; this includes the "Anthem" ,"Hwa Chong Family of Schools", "Campus", "Academic Information", "Special programmes", "Exchange programmes", among others. It is poorly structured, some sections containing just one or two sentences as a paragraph. I will allow a grace period of one week for improvements to this article. If concerns are not addressed within those seven days, this article will be delisted. ℯxplicit 02:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit: I will have a look into the article and fix the issues that you have raised above. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Explicit: I have removed or trimmed most of the sections that you have mentioned, however, I do feel that the details in the 'Campus' section are reasonable (as it only focuses on the important aspects of the campus) and did not enter into excessive detail of it. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 11:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: My concerns were not able detail, they were about verifiability. Various sections still remain unreferenced and the lead does not adequately summarize the article's contents. The article remains in poor shape. ℯxplicit 05:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Nearly three weeks have passed since imitating this review, and very little has improved. As a result, this article will be delisted. ℯxplicit 00:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)