Template:Did you know nominations/Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Threshold issues[edit]
- ... that justiciability is a threshold issue in Singapore administrative law, and the Court of Appeal has held that exercises of prosecutorial discretion and the clemency power are justiciable?
- Reviewed: Tears of the Prophets
- Comment: The article was created on 19 June 2013 by moving it from a sandbox. The hook is referenced by footnotes 121, 176–177 and 183–185.
Created by ConstiKid4 (talk), Estelle.moh (talk), Esther.tang.2011 (talk), Kia Hua (talk), Kzem.smu (talk), Mahchenzhong (talk), Priscillasoh (talk), Rachel.lam.2010 (talk), Reginalim2011 (talk), and Twicethetastezerocalories (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 09:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC).
That's quite a fair bit of students you've got there editing this article... You know, this article is pretty boring to read on (though I'm sure it would be interesting to some others), but I did spot something... Why is the "Introduction" paragraph completely uncited? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Three groups of students edited the different parts of the article at different times. It's always going to be a bit difficult to make articles relating to the law exciting to read. The short paragraph in the "Introduction" section actually just introduces what is to follow and doesn't contain any substantive content. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In that case, the article meets DYK criteria. AGF on the many offline sources. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Three groups of students edited the different parts of the article at different times. It's always going to be a bit difficult to make articles relating to the law exciting to read. The short paragraph in the "Introduction" section actually just introduces what is to follow and doesn't contain any substantive content. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
