Talk:Rule of law doctrine in Singapore: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
m Transcluding GA review |
GA |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA|20:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)|topic=Social sciences and society|page=1}} |
|||
{{GA nominee|11:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] ([[User talk:Hildanknight|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Law|status=onreview|note=For concerns that require access to sources to address, please contact [[User:Smuconlaw|Smuconlaw]]. For concerns that require legal knowledge to address, please contact Smuconlaw and [[User:Chensiyuan|Chensiyuan]]. For all other concerns, please contact me. [[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] ([[User talk:Hildanknight|talk]]) 17:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Law|class= |
{{WikiProject Law|class=GA|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Singapore|class= |
{{WikiProject Singapore|class=GA|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{Educational assignment|month=3|year=2011|link=Wikipedia:School and university projects#School of Law, Singapore Management University: Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project (ongoing; started January 2010)}} |
{{Educational assignment|month=3|year=2011|link=Wikipedia:School and university projects#School of Law, Singapore Management University: Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project (ongoing; started January 2010)}} |
||
{{dyktalk|15 May|2012|entry=... that at a 1999 [[Singapore]] [[Parliament of Singapore|Parliament]] debate, opposition [[Parliament of Singapore#Members of Parliament|MP]] [[Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam|J.B. Jeyaretnam]]'s [[motion (parliamentary procedure)|motion]] that the [[Government of Singapore|Government]] should comply fully with the '''[[rule of law doctrine in Singapore|rule of law]]''' was amended to commend the Government for doing so?}} |
{{dyktalk|15 May|2012|entry=... that at a 1999 [[Singapore]] [[Parliament of Singapore|Parliament]] debate, opposition [[Parliament of Singapore#Members of Parliament|MP]] [[Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam|J.B. Jeyaretnam]]'s [[motion (parliamentary procedure)|motion]] that the [[Government of Singapore|Government]] should comply fully with the '''[[rule of law doctrine in Singapore|rule of law]]''' was amended to commend the Government for doing so?}} |
Revision as of 20:06, 27 July 2014
![]() | Rule of law doctrine in Singapore has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 27, 2014. |
Please add
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Law GA‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
Please add
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Singapore GA‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in March 2011. Further details are available here. |
![]() | A fact from Rule of law doctrine in Singapore appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 May 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Rule of law doctrine in Singapore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This has waited way too long for a review so I'll try this one. Admittedly it will probably take me a while to fully do the review. Wizardman 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing this article! Take your time. Singapore is preparing to celebrate Hari Raya Puasa on Monday. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Through lead and intro so far, reads well. Wizardman 14:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Conceptions also good, no issues. The first half of the article was a bit quote-heavy for my liking, but it wasn't beyond what's generally accepted so I won't worry over it. Wizardman 15:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
After reading through this, I see that this is a very well-done article with no real weaknesses to speak of despite its length. As such I'm passing it. Wizardman 20:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)