Talk:Kent Ridge Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Kent Ridge Park has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Kent Ridge Park is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
A fact from Kent Ridge Park appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 22 August 2007.
Wikipedia


[edit] Article name

Should this article be called Kent Ridge Park or just Kent Ridge? It appears that this article is assuming the two are the same, although one is a geographic feature, while the other is just a park?--Huaiwei 16:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

According to NHB, "Kent Ridge" was named as such after the park on the ridge (formerly Pasir Panjang Ridge) was renamed to "Kent Ridge Park" on 3 Oct 1952. If u r interested to find out more, do check out the commemorative plaque that was erected at the junction of Kent Ridge Rd & South Buona Vista Rd next time. (Want to guess how Kent Ridge Rd got its present name?). Geographically speaking, the park itself lies on the main Kent Ridge range that covers nearly 2 thirds of the Ridge that is bounded by South Buona Vista Rd in the west and Pepys Rd in the east.(See map) It has an average elevation of over 50m above sea level & the highest peak at 61m (near Carpark B) is found in the park. Even if one chooses to write a separate article called "Kent Ridge" for pedantic reasons, I strongly believe that the author will more or less cover the same topics & its association as mentioned in my article earlier i.e. etymology, history, WWII site, geography, flora & fauna etc. I choose to write under "Kent Ridge Park" was due to its historical significance which is already self explanatory. Thank u for yr assessmenent & feedback. -- Aldwinteo 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a definitive source stating that the name of the park actually comes before the name of the ridge? While it is generally okay to refer to "Kent Ridge" as both the ridge and the park, it is not as accurate to refer to "Kent Ridge Park" as a ridge. Plenty of content in this article is far more suited for Kent Ridge, while Kent Ridge Park should probably be confined to the physical park itself which presently occupies part of Kent Ridge. Please be mindful that the National University of Singapore, which sits on the western half of Kent Ridge, is not part of Kent Ridge Park, for example.--Huaiwei 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I mixed up the date & its association in my earlier reply. As per commemorative plaque's inscriptions, the ridge was renamed as Kent Ridge on 23 February 1954 by the Governor of Singapore, Sir John Nicoll to commemorate the visit by the Duke & Duchess of Kent to a former military area somewhere on the park itself on 3 Oct 1952. I wld like to reiterate that my original intention is to write on Kent Ridge Park cos of its rich historical & natural heritage. As such, it was titled "Kent Ridge Park" as my prior research, references used & topics covered are pertaining to Kent Ridge Park only. I'm fine whether it's interpreted as "Kent Ridge" or "Kent Ridge Park" as long as the quality and integrity of the article is not compromised. Hope we have reach a common understanding on this issue as lengthy debates will be counter-productive. (i'm in the midst of researching and writing my upcoming 3 WWII articles during my limited free time & will be taking a long wiki-break afterwards) Lastly, I'm no stranger to the habitat of Kent Ridge & its surroundings as i'm associated to a nature society and a biodiversity museum at NUS. Rgds, -- Aldwinteo 17:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for the clarifications made over the naming issue. I agree fully that the area is rich in historical & natural heritage, but this is associated with Kent Ridge, not Kent Ridge Park, the later of which was a much more recent entity. The Battle of Pasir Panjang (and Battle of Bukit Chandu), was fought over at Pasir Panjang Ridge, now known as Kent Ridge. Kent Ridge Park was built much later to preserve a specific area of the ridge which has the greatest historical significance. I would therefore call for all information related to the area's history be moved to an article called Kent Ridge, while this article will concentrate on the natural history within the confines of the park (not the entire ridge), with only a passing comment on military history which may have occured within the park. I do not doubt your familiarity of the area, but I would think as a graduant of NUS, and a geography major with a keen interest in urban planning, it is only natural for me to sense geographic inaccuracies when they are due. The National Heritage Board may be a good source to write up on heritage-related articles, but I would think other agencies have a hand to play as well, most notably the Urban Redevelopment Authority, which obviously has a different idea on just what Kent Ridge/Kent Ridge Park really is[1].--Huaiwei 18:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] info removed from the article

This information, while good, has virtually nothing to do with Kent Ridge Park, and more to do with the Battle of Bukit Chandu. It is not repeated there, so it would be more useful to move and integrate it there. --The_stuart (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This all-Malay force was started in 1933 as an experimental group based in Malaya's Port Dickson and was led by British officers. The inaugural group of recruits was so impressive that the British decided to expand it to battalion strength of about 800 men and officers by end-1934.[1] In July 1940, the Regiment moved down to Singapore and took over a camp in Pasir Panjang.

By 1941, a second battalion of about 450 men and officers was created, some from the Malay contingent of the Straits Settlements Volunteer Force were drafted to form the nucleus of the 2nd Battalion in December of that year.[1] The Malay Regiment saw combat action in different parts of the Malay Peninsula, finally ending up in Singapore when all Allied troops evacuated the mainland. The 2nd Battalion joined their comrades who were deployed on the Pasir Panjang sector earlier, added up to about 1,400 men in total strength.

Lieutenant Adnan Bin Saidi (1915—1942) was born in Kajang, Malaysia and educated in Pekan Sungei Ramal School. He married Supiah binte Pekek Sutan, a religious teacher who bore him two sons and a daughter who died during the war. His two sons, Mokhtar and Zainudin, were fostered out when their monther died of pneumonia on 29 May 1947.[2]

In 1933, Lieutenant Adnan joined the Malay Regiment and was voted the Best Recruit by his commanding officers in 1934.[2] In 1936, he was promoted to the rank of Sergeant and because of his outstanding leadership qualities, he was later sent to Singapore to attend an officer training course. After completing the course successfully, he was promoted to Second Lieutenant and became the leader of 7th Platoon, "C" Company, 1st Battalion in 1937. In 1941, when he was posted to Singapore, he brought his family and lived in one of the nearby Malay villages in Pasir Panjang where his battalion was located.[2]

The Battle of Bukit Chandu began on 12 February 1942. By then, the Malay Regiment had been enlarged by stragglers from Australian and British units after their defeat in defending northwestern Singapore against Japanese landings during the Battle of Kranji. Due to the fierce onslaught of the 13,000-strong Japanese forces led by Lieutenant-General Mutaguchi Renya's 18th Division, many of the Allied troops were killed or forced to retreat to the Singapore Town to regroup. The Malay Regiment stood their ground gallantly but suffered heavy casualties. Many Japanese soldiers were killed or wounded too. The 18th Division gradually pushed the two remaining "B" and "C" companies of the Malay Regiment, consisted of 159 survivors, to make a last stand on a position known as Point 226 on Bukit Chandu.[3] The Japanese set fire to the slopes to expose the stubborn defenders. The Malay Regiment's position on the hill was eventually overrun by the Japanese and there was hand-to-hand combat when the last few men ran out of ammunition. All the officers except one, Lieutenant Abbas Abdul-Manan, and most of the men were massacred in the aftermath.[3]

Lieutenant Adnan was shot, bayonetted and his body hung up from a tree after the Japanese took over the position. No one was allowed to remove his body.[3] Pursued by Japanese troops, Lieutenant Abbas led four surviving men towards the deep drain where burning oil from the nearby Normanton Oil Depot was flowing, creating a huge wall of fire. They leapt across but two fell into the burning oil. Lieutenant Abbas and the last two men made it back to their Battalion HQ near Alexandra Barracks to report the total annihilation of the Regiment.[1]

Thank u for your review and edits done on the article earlier. Though your rational seem sound to remove the battle section (not a third but at 40% of the article, from 13.7kb to 8.3kb based on your last edits), it has become a 'watered-down' version in terms of its significance and content now, which doesn't do justice on its status as one of the 11 WWII sites of S'pore and being the final historical battle site during the Battle of Singapore. As per context of the article which I wrote earlier, my purpose was to provide a deeper insight on its history and significance. If one is to visit the park itself, the 'essence' felt on-site is its unique history which I hope to deliver in my writings earlier. Fyi, much time & energy was spend in research & site-visits to the park and I've included as much as possible the relevant information gleaned from the war museum, the National Parks Board and the national archives earlier. As such, I do not have any more content to add as mentioned earlier. Moreover, the SGpedian community and myself wld not only be greatly disappointed of the article arriving at such a state now as per 'rationalisation process', but also be deeply saddened should it failed its GA status as a result of lack of in-depth info at its current context now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you should make a new article on the Battle of Bukit Chandu with this information. That would suit the purposes of the sgpedians, and be a useful use of this information. --The_stuart (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The 6 paragraphs which u removed in the 'History' section earlier was intended to provide the necessary background story on the hill (aka 'Point 226') mentioned in the article & its significance during the final days of the Battle of S'pore. That's the rationale why it was incorporated in the first place so as to provide the necessary scope and depth for the article concerned. As I've retired from active writings for Wikipedia (only helping out with the GA exercise for SGpedia now), I'll leave it to the regular editors from 'Battle of Bukit Chandu' or SGpedians to evaluate & follow-up whether to incorporate the excised info later. Moving forward, I've nothing more to add or copyedit further & wld like u to give a final review on its status soon. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

As The_stuart (talk) has not yet been able to begin this GA review, then I will, and hopefully he will be along in due course to add his own observations.

There are two main areas where I think this article needs a little bit more work, the layout of the park and the history. Specifically:

  • I haven't got any real idea of the layout of the park from the article, other than that it's 47 ha and 60 metres at its highest point. What's the topography like? Is it on a hillside? Is it mainly flat with a central ridge running through it? Is the ridge the highest point? Is it terraced (because of the crops that were once grown there)? Which part of the park is the bungalow in? How many entrances are there to the park? Where are they? A map or a schematic of the park would be a very useful addition.
Y Done. Pse refer to my follow-up edits for details. As for a descriptive map, I've already provided a reference under the 'External links' earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • When did the park open?
Y Done. The park was officiated by the former Governor of Singapore, Sir John Fearns Nicoll on 23 February 1954. A commemorative plaque marked the occasion to this day. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The first few sentences of the Plant and animal life section would fit better in the History section I think.
Y Done. I agreed too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The idea of the army adopting the park is a strange one to me, and I think needs to be explained. What are the consequences of the army's adoption?
Y Done. The SAF adopted the park (see pix here) in support of the NParks 'Adopt A Park' scheme under the auspices of the Garden City Fund, an initiative started by our former Prime Minister & current Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in the 1960s. Due to the park historical significance (See full history here), the army adopted the park not only to fund its upkeep to ensure its memories & natural heritage are being kept well for future generations but also the lessons learnt on the importance of Total Defence too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reference #2 simply repeats the wikilink to the National Heritage Board, leaving the date of "gazetting" unreferenced.
Y Done. Thks for spotting the error, 'Ref 2' shld belongs under the 'Reference' section. I've made the necessary correction now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "... it was the site of an opium packing plant owned by the British ...". That implies that it was owned by the British government. Is that the case?
As mentioned by the war museum & other references, the factory (now demolished) was formerly managed by the British East India Company since the 19th century till 1910. For details, u may want to read 'Poh Ern Shih Temple' as mentioned under the 'See also' section earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspected that it might have been the British East India Company. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
According to its history, the BEIC's opium trail never ceased from its origins in India but spread over later to China (See 'Opium War') & to the former colonies in South East Asia, which was done "in the name of free trade or Her Majesty's Service". As such, I was not surprised when it was featured (though the story was mainly fictional) as one of the chief antagonists depicted by Hollywood in the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy in recent years. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article says that Bukit Chandu is a hill within the park. Is that where the war museum is? The Bukit Chandu web site mentions an old Ford factory. Is that there too?
The war museum is on the mentioned hill but not the Old Ford Factory (it's not related to the opium plant mentioned in the article). Bukit Chandu was also known as 'Point 226' by the British Army during WWII, where the Malay Regiments defended the hill bravely but were massacred in the end. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of its historcial info were removed earlier (at 40% of total content) by the previous reviewer which was deemed 'unnecessary' (See above discussion for details). The external link u saw earlier point to another site named 'Memories at Old Ford Factory', another war museum that is managed by the same entity (National Archives of S'pore) at Bukit Timah in the central part of S'pore, not in Kent Ridge Park itself. Fyi, the Old Ford Motor Factory was where Lt-Gen Arthur Ernest Percival signed the historic surrender of Malaya & Singapore on 15 Feb 1942 after the infamous Battle of Singapore, an event described by Sir Winston Churchill as the 'worst disaster' and 'largest capitulation' in British history back then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "The park's facilities include fitness stations ...". That's not a term that's familiar to me, I think it needs a little explanation.
'Fitness stations' (as mentioned officially here) or 'fitness corners' refer to the on-site fitness amenities that helps the locals to do physical exercises such as chin-ups, leg-raise, log-lifting etc -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "From this lookout point, a panoramic view of the coast of Pasir Panjang and some of the southern islands such as Pulau Bukom is visible, and Pulau Duran Darat on a clear day." None of these places mean anything to me. How far away is the coast of Pasir Panjang and the islands, in what direction?

Y Done. Pse refer to my follow-up edits for details. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • "In 1995, the park was gazetted by the National Heritage Board ...". What does gazetted mean? Designated?
Yes, it means 'designated' in another definition. 'Gazetted' was used here as it was officially quoted this way in the press & in their guides earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is likely not a complete list of issues to be addressed, and The stuart may well want to add to them. It's enough though, I think, to get this GA review process formally underway, so I'm going to put this article on hold now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the problems caused by the previous reviewer's insistence that material about the Battle of Bukit Chandu be removed, but I do think that he was right, even though it has left this article a little on the short side. But shortness isn't a problem for GA, so long as the article has a good coverage of its subject. And so I have a few more questions:

  • "Formerly used to house senior officers ...". From the context I'd guess that's British Army officers? Needs to be clarified anyway.
Y Done. Yup, the folks were from the British Army. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm still not clear what paths there are through the park apart from the canopy way.
Y Done. Pse refer to my follow-up edits for details. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • How many people visit the park each year?
Sorry, no such figures are available from NParks or other available sources. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have to pay to get into the park?
No, been FOC all these while. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it open all year round? Does it open and close at certain times of the day?
It opens daily all year round including public holidays. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there any events held in the park?

Y Done. Yes, eco-tours, battle/heritage tours, birdwatching tours are organised regularly by volunteers and tour agencies for students, war veterans(UK/Oz/NZ)[2] and the general public alike.[3] -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • "Today, the park is being managed by the NParks" What's the NParks? Needs to be explained.
  • The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article now that it's about the park, not the battle.
Y Done.
  • "... most of the men were massacred ..." Massacred is a pretty strong word. Is it supported by the source?

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Equally known like the Battle of Waterloo in Britain or the Attack on Sydney Harbour (I'm a former Aussie grad from NSW), the Battle of Bukit Chandu is not only commonly known to Singaporeans as we learnt its history as part of our O-Levels exams, but also by our neighbouring Malaysians ('cos of the involvment of their Royal Malay Regiment) & the annual homage by WWII veterans & their families. Besides the mentioned source from the war museum, it's also supported by in-text citations/references by Yap, Lee, Foong and the National Archives of S'pore shld anyone is interested to check out their books for in-depth study. For online citation, u can chk this out at Infopedia by S'pore National Library Board. Fyi, the event of the battle not only lead to the massacre of the 159 survivors of the Malay Regiments, but also the horrific Alexandra Hospital Massacre soon after. If u r interested to find out more about the atrocities committed during the Japanese Occupation of S'pore, do read the Kempeitai East District Branch & its links under 'See also' too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A fascinating story.

Yes, it's the touching stories of the human spirit in times of adversity that moved me to write about them in Wikipedia. See 'Changi Murals' concerning a British POW which I wrote previously. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As it looks like The stuart will not be joining us for this review I think that we ought to try and wrap it up now. I'm sorry to have to say that I do still have a few reservations before I can feel happy about slapping that little green dot on this article, but none that I don't think can be dealt with easily and quickly. I'll list them in the order in which I see their importance:

  • My biggest problem is in reconciling the references.
  • Note #1 lists "Foong, "Fighting the Enemy in Pasir Panjang: The Role of the Malay Regiment", p. 295.". In the References section I see "# Foong, Choon Han (1997). The Price of Peace—True Accounts of the Japanese Occupation. Singapore: Asiapac Booksooks. ISBN 981-3068-53-1." So I'm assuming that this is a form of Harvard referencing, but because the titles don't match I'm left wondering if it's one book or two. Is "Fighting the Enemy in Pasir Panjang: The Role of the Malay Regiment" a chapter title? Anyway, I'd strongly suggest either using the author/book title or author/publication year in the Notes section to make the match more obvious.
Y Done. Yes, I'm using the Harvard referencing model in all my writings all along. The 'Note 1' refers to the specific chapter/section & pg no. where the info was quoted in relation to the references listed below. It's also the style adopted by our National Library Board & the National Archives of Singapore seen during my earlier research. I've added the 'year' portion now to avoid any confusion just in case. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't see what publication Note #2 is referring to; "National Heritage Board, "Battle of Pasir Panjang", p. 5."
If u check closely, it refers to Ref 1. Do amend if nec. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The final entry in the References section doesn't give any publication details at all: "Reflections at Bukit Chandu. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore."
Y Done. It refers specifically to the war museum & I've amended it for clarity now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I still don't think that enough is being said about the park. The NParks site talks about a number of ponds, wild turtles, and twenty fitness centres. That kind of information really needs to be included.
Y Done. I've added the abv details but I do not specify the exact qty earlier as such figures may change over time, i.e. upgrading, removals etc in future. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Battle of Pasir Panjang is just dropped into The park today section (I don't think that section titles should start with "the" anyway, but that needs to be checked) without any explanation. It needs to be explained where that battle took place (was it in the park, if so where?), and how it relates to the Battle of Bukit Chandu.
Fyi, the Battle of Chandu also refers to the Battle of Pasir Panjang. I've added an intro on this in the lead to avoid any confusion. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "When the first settlers arrived in Singapore in the early 19th century ...". Does this mean the first European settlers, the first British settlers, or something else?
As per references cited, this info was not specially mentioned whether the first settlers were the Malay natives, Chinese immigrants or the European settlers before a British fortress (now demolished) was built sometime in the 1930s. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's about it. The references issue really is a showstopper at the moment; the other issues can be dealt with pretty easily I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather amused that u added a supernatural element into the article as per 'Note 9'. Is such info necessary? Even though some of the historical sites that I've visited are known for such hauntings (I personally had some 'unearthly' encounters before esp at the Japanese Cemetery Park) during my previous site visits & interviews, I've not mentioned this aspect at all in all my history/heritage writings to date not just to uphold the integrity of the article but also as a mark of respect to the deceased. (I usually asked for 'permission' & offered prayers before entering certain 'hot spots' alone). May I know what is the specific vol no. (there're 17 volumes of his books known to date,[4]), chapter & pg no. of your earlier references in line of the referencing issues u highlighted above? -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for making those changes, especially to the references. Adding the date makes it clearer that it's the book in the bibliography that's being referenced and not some other book by the same author. I assume that the title you've given in the citation is the chapter title? Anyway, you'll be even more relieved than me to hear that I'm now going to list this article as a GA. It's been difficult, I know, because of all the WWII material about the battle that was taken out, but I think that this is now a reasonable coverage of the park itself, given its close historical connections with that war.
In reply to your very fair questions about the ghost story I added, you are of course quite right to pick up on the reference not giving a specific volume or page number. When you lived in Australia you may have come across the English saying "Do as I say, not as I do." :-) To be honest I didn't even realise that there were 17 volumes, I thought it would be just one book. I copied the information and reference directly from the Battle of Pasir Panjang article without really giving it much thought. To answer your general question though, yes, I would include relevant ghost stories where appropriate and they can be sourced, as I think it adds a bit of colour. But obviously I quite understand if it might be felt to be in any way improper in this case that it should be removed.
So well done on producing another nice GA on a subject that not too many of us outside of your part of the world are likely to be very familiar with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Fyi, the area from the canopy walk all the way to the war museum was the scene where many of the Japanese invaders & defenders perished during the 1942 battle. According to some eye-witness's account disclosed on condition of anonymity & also similar stories published in the later volumes of the book u cited earlier, 'accidents' & 'sightings' were previously reported when boisterous behaviour or unrespectful words were uttered near the vicinity. As such, I hope u appreciate my earlier query & statement made on 'permission sought' & offering of prayers (Metta chants) mentioned earlier (Background of the Metta Sutta chant here). u may want to read on a legendary mountain in M'sia named Gunung Ledang & its associated myths [5] ('no pork allowed', 'peace to those who enter with good heart' etc according to their locals & park rangers). It's only 1276m high, but has claimed the lives of many youths from M'sia & S'pore to date. Once again, I thank u for your time, high-quality copyedits & review in passing this artcle as GA status mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand the point that you've made about respect and the offering of prayers. My only defence is that I'm English. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)