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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shopping Centers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of enclosed
shopping malls, outdoor shopping centers, and
dead malls 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.Shopping CentersWikipedia:WikiProject Shopping CentersTemplate:WikiProject Shopping CentersShopping center articles
This article is written in
Singaporean English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, centre, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Edit conflict due to visual editor and peer review errors
Hi, this is
Quek157. I got into 2 problems recently.
I had for the past 2 hours extensively cleanup the page of any COPYVIOs/ reorganized the page extensively, changed all the formats and it can be a much better work. But all gone to waste due to the visual editor switched to source editing due to edit conflict. No one is editing it with me and then I previewed a version to reconciliate the conflict but then the version is the previous version. Unknowingly, I accidentally pressed back to editing, which then is the previous version. Result: all of my 2 hours of hard work is gone, all the paraphrasing are gone and I am quite upset about it but will try to redo this. Just as in academics, I had whole copies of notes (after reading through journals as well as annals, then saved wrongly and then lost) and I had to redo the entire note once again. I apparently did not learn from this mistake but I will still try to bring the article to the better revise version which now only reside in my minds. These edits will have solved many of the below auto peer review named concerns. sigh. Now the edit in my mind is being restored after even more work. My memory is apparently good (self consolation) --
Quek157 (
talk)
11:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Peer review I did an error in editing it through it is not supposed to do so. So please ignore the previous peer review. I will sincerely hope for ideas to improve and thanks so much for all the time spent. Withdrawn peer review as auto peer review seems a lot to be done. will do these before peer review as will be better not to clog up backlog. sorry
Quek157 (
talk)
19:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at
Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on
WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is . KG.
As done in
WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the
CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]