Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore was nominated as a good article in the Social sciences and society category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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.
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.
A fact from Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 August 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
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?
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)