Talk:Old National Library Building

Tone problems

Large parts of this article do not have an encyclopedic tone. Some examples:

• "the rare display of civic activism on its preservation became a watershed event in generating greater awareness of Singapore's heritage and its conservation in future."
• The section headline: "Gone but not forgotten"
• "the city planners got the message loud and clear - To think with the head and heart in future."
• "as a symbolic gesture of the new connecting with the old and its legacy in the hearts of Singaporeans."

These sound like their coming from a memorial for the building.--Carabinieri 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As per highlighted concerns, I've make the neccesary amendments on the tone of my article. Thk u for your feedback. -- Aldwinteo 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Per WP:FOOTNOTE: "Avoid using Ibid or similar abbreviations in footnotes. Other editors who add new references to the article may not take the time to correct Ibid references broken by their addition. Furthermore, not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the term. If a reference is reused in more than one footnote, it is preferable to use the format "Smith, Short Title, 182" rather than "Ibid, 182", so as to avoid these problems, or use named references if appropriate." – Chacor 09:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this has been bugging me too. Anyway, I've fixed it. I actually prefer citing the whole work instead of page numbers, and combining the citations. If there is consensus I will make the change that way. --Rifleman 82 11:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Noted Chacor, am learning along the way. Thk u Rifleman 82 for making the nec amendments earlier & defending my works all these while. -- Aldwinteo 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Old National Library Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 04:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Comment: Interesting article on a historical building, well structured with a generous amount of images, definitely a good article. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 04:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There are uncited statements, including entire pargaraphs, throughout the article. These have been tagged as such since March 2024.
• The lead focuses on the controversy and demise of the building, but does not contain much information about its construction or pre-2004 history. I suggest that an additional paragraph be added to include this information.

Is anyone interested in fixing up the article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Old National Library Building

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There are uncited statements, including entire pargaraphs, throughout the article. These have been tagged as such since March 2024. The lead focuses on the controversy and demise of the building, but does not contain much information about its construction or pre-2004 history. I suggest that an additional paragraph be added to include this information. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I also checked the reviewed version back in 2014 which also had significant portions uncited. Some of the wording is also awkward and unencyclopedic. And yeah, it mainly covers its history and very little of the building design itself. I mean, I've worked on a historical monument Singapore Conference Hall which is modelled upon Epicgenius' work on various NYC landmarks.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (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:Old National Library Building/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Actuall7 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Icepinner (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Reviewing this as part of the backlog drive. I'm gonna do another article first as it's older, then this nomination. Ping me in seven days if I haven't started this review yet. Icepinner 00:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, PGLRT took a lot less time than I thought, so I guess I'll do this review as well. Icepinner 05:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@Actuall7: I am finished with this review, placing it on hold. Icepinner 00:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Icepinner, have addressed all your points. Please note that I added more information from a new source I found, Lim 2010. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I am satisfied this meets the GAN criteria, and shall pass it accordingly. Excellent work on bringing it back to GA, especially for such an important landmark! Icepinner 09:34, 5 October 2025 (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:
· · ·

Description

Resolved

• I think it should be mentioned that the library was a part of the NLB. Icepinner 10:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Added in the Site section. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Site

• It was formerly occupied by the St John Ambulance Headquarters We seem to have a page for St John Singapore. Icepinner 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Linked. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Architecture

• decorated by cement pointings technically you can link cement points to Repointing, but it's your choice really. Icepinner 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Linked. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• The lecture hall had space for around 200 people, and could be hired out for lectures remove the comma. Icepinner 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Removed. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• The five-storey building, alongside the offices, lecture hall, and mezzanine, was among the few areas to receive air-conditioning Ngl the phrasing is a bit weird. I'm presuming that the offices, lecture hall, and mezzanine were the only areas in the building to be air-conditioned, along with the library itself being one of the few areas in Singapore to be air-conditioned at the time. I think the former (the areas air-conditioned in the library) can be merged with the air-conditioning plant, which served the offices, lecture hall, and mezzanine. Keep in mind I haven't checked any sources, as I'm saving it for the spot-check. Icepinner 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Have rewritten it to be less repetitive, does it work? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Facilities

• The library's book shelves were made with balau timber I think you can link Shorea to balau timber. Icepinner 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Linked. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• was made by the Singapore Prisons Department I think we can add a link to Singapore Prison Service. Icepinner 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Linked. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• In 1964, the library was expanded with a Southeast Asia Room, which included archives, journals, newspapers, and photographs relating to Southeast Asia. I think the second Southeast Asia can be replaced with "the region" or something, since it's a bit repetitive. Icepinner 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Changed. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• by Minister for Culture S. Rajaratnam we have a bit of a SEAOFBLUE situation, your call. Icepinner 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Changed, alongside with later mentions of ministers. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• added terminals for reader's use which allowed free access to the internet at any of these locations; the National Library had three, two in the reference library and one in the loan section Should a colon be used for the National Library had three, or is the comma fine? Icepinner 10:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• I split up the sentence to make things more clear. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

History

Resolved

• Actually, I think it might be worth adding when the NLB took ownership of the library. Upon reading National Library Board, there was a "national library of Singapore" organisation, and I don't think that's mentioned here (did said organisation order the library to be built? idk). Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• It seems that the National Library Board took over the library in 1995, the same year it was created. Before that, it's not really clear who ran the library. It just seems to have been the government before an official branch was made to manage it. Have added a mention nonetheless. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Update: I have just found a new source and updated the article with it. It provides the proper timeline of the ownership of the library, alongside other information. You may check the new information added if you'd like. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Background

• Singapore Free School (now known as Raffles Institution) I don't see this in the source. It was only renamed RI in 1868, according to Raffles Institution. Icepinner 11:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• I can't exactly remember where I got this information from (maybe the Raffles Institution article), but I'll just remove it for now. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 15:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• The Singapore Library used subscriptions as its main source of income, inevitably facing frequent financial difficulties what makes the Singapore Library face frequent financial difficulties due to relying on subscriptions as its main source of income "inevitable"? Icepinner 11:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• The source (Luyt 2008) doesn't specify, but I would assume a library in early colonial Singapore would only be appealing to the English-speaking members of society, let alone those willing to support it. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 15:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Construction

• the construction of the Teacher's Training College you can link Teacher's Training College to National Institute of Education. Icepinner 11:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Linked. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 15:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• The building's frame would be made of reinforced concrete but feature a red-brick exterior, along with using fluorescent lighting. This implies that it was planned for the library's exterior to have fluorescent lighting, which I'm assuming is not the case? You may never know. Icepinner 11:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Rewritten. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 15:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• as part of the first phase of Operation Pinta What is Operation Pinta? Icepinner 11:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Appears to just be the name used by the people moving the books between libraries (also found out it's "Pinda", not "Pinta"). – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 15:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Operation and subsequent developments

• the word "Raffles" was dropped from "Raffles National Library" and "Raffles National Museum", becoming known as the "National Library" and "National Museum", respectively Any particular reason for this renaming? I also don't think it's relevant to mention the National Museum here. Icepinner 11:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• I believe it was to make the National Library and Museum more "national", by removing the ties to Stamford Raffles' name. Have expanded on this. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 15:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Civic and Cultural District Master Plan

• URA's publication, Skyline Vol. 37 (November/December 1988) I don't think it's necessary to mention the full volume. Icepinner 11:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Shortened. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 15:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Redevelopment

Resolved

• I think Master Plan and any variation needs to be deitalicised. Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Done. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Moreover, planning an additional four new branches built in Yishun, Tampines, Hougang, and Woodlands suggest rephrasing to "there were plans to build four new branches..." or remove it. Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Changed. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Urban Redevelopment Authority link. Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Done. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• thus giving the Museum precinct a peaceful and quiet ambience I'd recommend putting peaceful and quiet ambience in quotes (or whatever the source says) due to WIKIVOICE concerns. Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Done. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• I've noticed this in the Details section, but what is the "IT age"? What time period does this cover? Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• It isn't really a specific period of time, more so just the term used in sources to describe implementing technology. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Public dissent

• the Straits Times Forum page Shouldn't it be The Straits Times? I also don't think "Forum" should be included in the italicisation, as that would imply the Forum page of The Straits Times is a separate publication, even though it is not. Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Fixed. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• the URA made public their definitive decision Either "public" or "definitive" is redundant? A definitive decision has to be made public, no? Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Fixed. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Preservation of Monuments Board this can be linked to National Heritage Board (Singapore). Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Linked. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Civic District can be linked. Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Linked. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath and legacy

Resolved

• The library continued to operate before officially closing on 31 March 2004. Out of curiosity, was there any fanfare when it closed, like tons of people visiting the library? Icepinner 08:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• new National Library would like to see a link for the new National Library. Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Linked. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• as part of the Art-in-Transit programme. Comic Connect, not Art in Transit. Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Ah, good catch. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Resolved

Earwig

• Earwig detected some in the 20s range, but they're mostly proper nouns or unparaphrasable phrases. Icepinner 00:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Spot check

The square root of the total number of sources in the article will be checked. Non-accessible sources will be skipped. Icepinner 06:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• [4]: Pass
• [15]: Pass, but there's a PDF version on the NTU website, so I think it's okay to link it
• [21] Problem: you're saying that From the 1980s to 1990s, the library would improve their services by utilising technology, yet the article you cited was from 1979. Icepinner 23:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Removed and rewrote. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• [37]: Pass
• [48]: Pass
• [57] Concern: the National Library was located in the Central Region of Singapore may be allowed to be mentioned without a citation since it's repeated above, but I fear this may be SYNTH. Icepinner 23:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• Have removed it. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• [64]: Pass
• [76] Observation: Ah, now I see the "IT age" is a Wikipedia thing. Icepinner 23:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• [88]: Pass
• [92]: Pass, I suppose

• I agree that it is a little unclear, as I can't find a source specifically saying when the library was demolished, just that it was sometime during the construction of the tunnel. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Other

• Not a big fan of citing Biblioasia, but since it's mainly used for info that doesn't appear in other sources, I will leave it at that. Icepinner 00:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Image review

Resolved

• File:Old National Library-Singapore.jpg under NFC. I think the tag may be acceptable, though I would use {{Non-free destroyed architecture}} Icepinner 00:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Updated the tag. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• File:Red brick of the Old National Library Building.jpg CC BY 2.0
• File:Old National Library-The Courtyard.jpg I would also use the template on that instead of the generic one. Icepinner 00:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Updated the tag. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• File:Raffles Library and Museum (cropped).jpg Public domain
• File:Lee Kong Chian, 1946.png When was this published in the US? Icepinner 00:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure, so I opted to remove it instead. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 07:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• File:National Library, Singapore.JPG CC BY 2.5
• File:Old National Library Site.jpg CC BY SA 3.0
• File:Old National Library Site.jpg CC BY SA 4.0

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.