Talk:J. M. Jumabhoy

Nominator: Actuall7 (talk · contribs) 15:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:J. M. Jumabhoy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chilicave (talk · contribs) 17:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article for good article status. Will leave comments/suggestions below the template.

Thanks for taking this up! – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments/Suggestions

• At first glance, I notice too many red links and even duplicate red links. I would remove them unless you know for sure an article will be created in the near future or if it is notable.

• I find most of the red links necessary. A majority of the people linked meet WP:NPOLITICIAN; his role as minister should probably have its own article, seeing as he isn't listed on the modern-day Ministry of Finance's article; and an article on the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce could be made in the same vein as the Singapore Chinese and the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce. However, if you disagree with any, I'd be happy to discuss. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Actuall7 That's perfectly fine then. Just wondering if it's necessary to have duplicate red links though?

I've removed some duplicate red links, mainly the ones in the lede. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 06:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Source spot check

[P 1]: 3 - I cannot find his date of birth on page 3

@Chilicave: Strange, I can find it on page 2-3? I am following the page numbers at the top of the digital book, not the physical numbers written on the book, which is why we might be seeing differing pages. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 06:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

[P 1]: 3, 9 - Where does it say that he was educated at Gan Eng Seng School?

This may be the same issue as above. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 06:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Aha! I see it. Thanks for clarifying! Chilicave (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Source 1 and 3 - good

[P 2]: 64–66  - good

Source 29 - good

Source 75 - good

• For the external image, it wouldn't hurt to remove it entirely from the article unless it holds some significant historical significance. The infox box image is already satisfactory.

• I just thought it might be interesting to have, but I have removed it. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 06:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• references to primary sources and newspapers - no issues due to only stating factual claims and no engagement of synthesis. good

Overall, the article is well put together. Although with little availability of secondary sources, there is extensive research of primary sources and they have been used appropriately throughout the article. This article meets GA standards. Well done