Template:Did you know nominations/Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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 Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law[edit]

(
)
  • Reviewed: Brad Vernon
  • Comment: The article was created on 16 May 2013 by moving it from a sandbox. The hook is referenced by footnotes 59–62 and the accompanying text.

Created by Huimin.law.2010 (talk), Linus.koh.2010 (talk), Yisiong.sui (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 08:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC).

  • This substantial article is both new enough and long enough. The hook is well sourced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed the {{fact}} tag as I feel a citation at the end of the paragraph you added it to is unnecessary. As the text of the paragraph indicates, the information is from sections 8 and 10 of the ISA. A footnote is unnecessary because it would simply repeat that information. — SMUconlaw (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Then it would not be consistent as you have cited the part on Section 8(1) of the ISA. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Bonkers is pointing at the footnote in the text box which is headed "An example of a subjectively worded power: Section 8(1) of the Internal Security Act", which points to the act. In other words, he's saying you've done it already so no reason to not do it again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for wording it better. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I put a footnote in the quotation box because that is the first time the ISA is referred to, so it needs a reference. However, having already done so there, later on it is not necessary to provide a citation for the ISA again. If you have a better idea for this situation, do let me know. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Your logic makes sense, but I feel that while it may be the first mention, there is no need to cite in the body (doing so for the quote box is perfectly fine). Other than this issue, perhaps we could do with a decent image. Fine by me if you don't wish to, but looking at the length of this article, it very likely will be the lead article should there be an image. E.g. A picture of the Parliament House. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Could someone else review this nomination and the discussion above? I don't think the issue concerning the footnote raised above is one that should prevent the hook from appearing in DYK. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Exclusion_of_judicial_review_in_Singapore_law&oldid=1022406273"