Template:Did you know nominations/Internal Security Act (Singapore)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Internal Security Act (Singapore)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC).

Internal Security Act (Singapore)[edit]

  • Reviewed: Model European Parliament
  • Comment: The updated article was created by moving it from a sandbox on 3 May 2013. The hook is referenced by footnotes 134–136.

5x expanded by ClaytonChong (talk), Huanghuien (talk), Iamgeraldsoo (talk), Jiaxinho (talk), and Lea Woon Yee (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 19:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC).

  • Looks good basically. Verified 5x expansion. Verified truth of hook, more or less. The article is accurate, but the hook is somewhat inaccurate in how it simplifies the text of the article - the last nine years weren't exactly "detention" as I understand them. A second opinion on this would be appreciated. Skimmed the article and it looks neutral though I am no expert. Well-sourced. Did a couple spot-checks and did not see any close plagiarism problems. I might change the hook to (ALT1) "that Chia Thye Poh, long detained under Singapore's Internal Security Act, has been called "the world's second longest serving prisoner-of-conscience after South Africa's Nelson Mandela"?" to resolve the issue.Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing the nomination. I see what you mean and appreciate your redrafted hook, but am just wondering whether "long detained" suggests that he's still being detained today, which is not the case. Maybe we should change the phrase back to "formerly detained" or "once detained" but omit the number of years, like this?
SMUconlaw (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
As a whole, it is a neat package, although I wish you would consider splitting content as it is a tad too large to comfortably scan through. Nevertheless, it meets our core requirements – long enough, new enough, free of copyright violations, and the hook is interesting. AGF on the offline source cited. (Sunday Times) ALT2 good to go. best, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)