Talk:Bedok Lighthouse

Infobox

Shouldn't there be an infobox on this article and put the "Characteristics" section in there? I can't find a suitable infobox category. ~Milnivri~ 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bedok Lighthouse. 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/20050828213602/http://www.mpa.gov.sg:80/circulars_and_notices/portmarine_circulars/pc97-90.htm to http://www.mpa.gov.sg/circulars_and_notices/portmarine_circulars/pc97-90.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Copy edit?

Some shaky grammar and rather unclear writing could use a bit of attention. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood I understand how the last two may need clarification but I don't understand how the first one needs clarification. It's obvious that submarine cables were laid to Bedok. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 00:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Submarine cables are laid for a purpose. For what purpose does a lighthouse in an area where there will obviously already be electrical power and communications infrastructure need submarine cables? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood I just removed it anyways since it the submarine cables were laid off the lighthouse and there wasn't much info on it. Hopefully the article is looking better now! Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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:Bedok Lighthouse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Icepinner (talk · contribs) 14:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I will do this one. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry but it seems like this will need to be quickfailed per quickfail criteria 1 and 3. It has a copyediting needed banner and three clarification tags. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It also has an issue brought up on the talk page just hours ago. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

GA review

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:Bedok Lighthouse/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Icepinner (talk · contribs) 00:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 00:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Starting review. Always happy to read about lighthouses. RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• The lighthouse began operation on 9 August 1978 and cost S$225,000 (1978) (US$98,943.5) to build; the Fullerton Lighthouse continued to operate until the end of that year.[1][2][3] As far as I can see, all the facts in this sentence are supported by just the first citation, so drop the extra ones; they don't add anything useful.

I'm going to stop here and make a general comment that the style of citations being used is confusing. You've got many sentences which are cited to two or three citations. This makes it difficult to verify. In most of the ones I've spot-checked so far, there's a single citation in that cluster which covers all the facts. In cases like that, you should just use the one citation. If there's not a single citation which covers everything, then you can add specific citations in the middle of sentences. In some cases, the facts from two citations will be so intertwined, the only reasonable way to do it will be to just put both of them at the end of the sentence, but these should be relatively rare. And sentences cited to three sources should be exceptionally rare. So please work on that; ping me when you've finished and I'll come back to take another look. RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith done. I've made most sentences cited to one citation, except for It is monitored by a telegraph line from the Port Operations Room in the PSA Towers and has a skeleton crew to prevent vandalism, which was combined into one sentence and thus has two separate citations. On a personal note, I prefer not to add citations in the middle of sentences without commas since it's rather "ugly", for lack of a better word, unless if I absolutely need to. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 03:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what the {{External media}} template is supposed to be doing. It claims to link to "A photograph of wireless equipment at Bedok Lighthouse", but the link goes to a 100+ page PDF document.

• Added the page number in the link.

@Seloloving: is File:Bedok Lighthouse light characteristic Fl W 5s.gif a crop from File:Bedok Lighthouse from East Coast Park 120622.jpg? RoySmith (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith I took a series of photos of the lighthouse flashing and made a GIF of the interval. I don't really recall if it's the exact same crop....I will check it tonight after work.... Seloloving (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I've been looking at the pattern of minor details in the two images (i.e. which apartment lights are on or off) and it seems pretty obvious it's the same image. RoySmith (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I was there for nearly 30 minutes plus and took 67 photos.. Checking on my computer with the benefit of zoom, it's not the same photo as the bottom right of the apartment differs in which lights are on and off. Is it urgent or necessary that I find the original photo I cropped it from? I no longer have the original frames in which I assembled the GIF and will need to dig through the entire album... Seloloving (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

No, there's no real urgency here. I was just curious. Thanks for your help. RoySmith (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm struggling to know how to proceed here. On the one hand, I can't find anything in WP:GACR which this article doesn't meet. On the other hand, it's so short, I'm not sure it makes sense to call it a GA. The lead is fully 1/3 of the total article text. Putting it another way, half of the main text has been pulled up (i.e. duplicated) in the lead, which doesn't seem to make sense. GACR doesn't actually say a GA article has to have a lead; it just says complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections and MOS:LEAD in turn says All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead") so maybe the answer here is to just eliminate the lead. But that doesn't really address the issue of how little information there is in this article; it just makes it more apparent how short it really is.

Turning to the infobox, I again can't point to anything specific that's wrong with it, but there's so little actual information in the article, the infobox pretty much just repeats everything in the Details section in tabular form. So not a lot of added value there. And even, as noted above, the two images in the article appear to actually be the same image, presented differently. I'm going to need to spend some time thinking about this (and probably consulting with some other people) but I didn't want to leave you hanging so laying out here where my thinking is at the moment. RoySmith (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

See WT:GAN#Can an article be too short to be GA? RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith Several points to note:

• I don't mind getting rid of one of the images. It was previously deleted as it was against MOS:SANDWICH but was brought back by another editor.
• Also don't mind getting rid of the infobox. Normally prefer if articles have infoboxes but I think in this case it may be necessary given the article's length
• For the lead paragraph, it depends on the consensus within that discussion. I'm open to shortening it but the extent of it is still up for debate.
• Regarding info, that's all the info available in publicly-available sources. I can always pay the library a visit for books, articles, or broadcasts that are normally locked because of copyright but based on a search in the NLB's catalogue there seems to be no resources available for Bedok Lighthouse compared to Horsburgh Lighthouse (results). A broader search on Singapore's lighthouses reveals maps and charts are available in the library but I doubt their usefulness. They could be of potential use but my guess is that it's just purely maps (still, you may never know...) See also this search's results on the NLB's overarching database; there are three archived news broadcasts regarding Bedok Lighthouse but other than that there's not many sources on the topic. A variant of this search reveals more news articles, though it's news article I've already used (the submarine-cable one used to be in this article but was removed because it wasn't related to the subject itself ("off Bedok Lighthouse", not to "Bedok Lighthouse")

Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I see you've joined the other thread, so let's see how that goes. In the meantime, yes, I'd suggest deleting the second image; it's not high quality and while it does show the light flashing, but I don't think that really adds anything. I wouldn't go so far as to delete the infobox; my point was more along the lines of highlighting how little other information there is in the article. So, yes, if you think there might be to be found in your local library then I would definitely encourage you to pay them a visit. RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Update @RoySmith: not much success. The maps did provide an arc of visibility for Bedok Lighthouse's light but other than that the only new piece of information they introduced is the specific shade of red for Bedok Lighthouse, as well as describing it as a "concrete cubicle" on top of an apartment. No success with the audiovisuals. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 08:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• OK, based on the conversation at WT:GAN, I'm satisfied that the shortness of this article is not a barrier to GA. Looking at the rest of WP:GACR, I see no copyright violations per Earwig, the sourcing looks fine (generally based on WP:RS and passes all the spot checks I did for correctness), etc. The only remaining issue I see is that the lead should be trimmed back to a few sentences covering only the most significant highlights. Once that is done, I don't see any further obstacles to GA. RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Roysmith, I'll work on it tomorrow as it's late in Singapore. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  @RoySmith how's it looking? Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 06:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

  That looks fine. I'd really love for this article to be able to say more, but it doesn't look like there's anything more to say that's supported by WP:RS, so we'll have to go with what we've got. RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Earth605 talk 19:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Bedok Lighthouse is the first fully automated lighthouse in Singapore?

• Source: https://www.roots.gov.sg/places/places-landing/Places/surveyed-sites/Bedok-Lighthouse-at-Lagoon-View

• • ALT1: ... that Bedok Lighthouse is the first lighthouse in mainland Singapore to be located on top of a residential building? Source: https://www.roots.gov.sg/places/places-landing/Places/surveyed-sites/Bedok-Lighthouse-at-Lagoon-View
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mackenzie Hall
  • Comment: Hesitant to add an image as it's rather hard to spot Bedok Lighthouse imo. Also have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Isoup Ganthy

Improved to Good Article status by Icepinner (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 02:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC).

• Hi Icepinner, review follows: article promoted to GA on 16 July and is written well enough; sources used look to be reliable for the subject and are cited inline throughout; hooks are interesting enough, stated in the article and check out to source cited; I didn't pick up on any overly close paraphrasing in a spot check on the sources and Earwig flags nothing of concern; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dumelow, appreciate it! :) Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 09:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Addendum: was not aware that every one of my nominations need a separate QPQ per WP:QPQ (I do sincerely apologise to all the DYK coordinators, I thought QPQ applied for every 5 nominations). For this purpose, I intend Template:Did you know nominations/Isoup Ganthy to be the QPQ for this nomination. I shall review other articles to make up for the lack of QPQ. Apologies once again! Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 05:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, that's fine thanks. It's only for nominations after your fifth, don't forget - Dumelow (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)