Talk:Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 12:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and trim this backlog a bit more and review this one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Through the lawsuit section so far and haven't found any issues. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the issues I found:

• "assures to the individual is the right to equal treatment with other individuals in similar circumstances." (Emphasis added.)" is emphasis added by you or by the source? If by you I'd remove since readers may misinterpret as the latter.
  •  Fixed: I've removed the term "(Emphasis added.)", but shouldn't the fact that the emphasis was not in the source be noted? — SMUconlaw (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• "he did not submit that the authorities' redevelopment " not sure if submit is the best wording here. Maybe "he did not state.."
  •  Fixed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• A delay between 2003 and 2008 is brought up as a main point throughout the article, but no detail is actually gone into what they were doing those five years. Add some of that information to the background.
  • Comment: The section "No inordinate delay" states: "The Court of Appeal also held that although there had prima facie been a delay, the appellants at the time had believed that the trustees and the authorities were engaged in settlement discussions that might lead to resolution of the dispute." Doesn't that explain what caused the delay? — SMUconlaw (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  It does, I was just curious if there was more to it then that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• "One academic has noted" if we're going to use one academic as a source, then give a name, it helps a lot more.
  •  Fixed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll put this on hold and give a week for the issues to be addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. See my comments above. — SMUconlaw (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks very much. — SMUconlaw (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)