Talk:Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Singapore (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC) I will do this review; I'll post notes here as I go through the article.

  • "to punish for contempt of court" (in both the lead and the body) is not a very natural phrase; perhaps "to punish those found guilty of contempt of court"?
  • The external link to the statute in the lead should be moved, per WP:EL; it might go in the external links section, or could possibly be placed in a footnote.
  • "Despite the practice in other jurisdictions": is "despite" the right word here? (As above, this phrase appears both in the lead and the body.) Is the Singaporean practice in despite of the practice of other jurisdictions, or is it just in contrast to them?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is a more serious issue with this article which means it should not be promoted to GA at this time. It was written before a landmark case by the Singapore Court of Appeal called Shadrake v. Attorney-General (2011), and needs to be updated. Regrettably, I don't have time to do so at the moment. Perhaps it would be better to nominate Shadrake v. Attorney-General for GA first. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I decided to withdraw the nomination and would like to apologise to both of you for any incovenience caused by overlooking that. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's no reason why you would have known about the issue! :) — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)