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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I understand that this article was written as a school project. Unfortunately, it does read like a school essay. It might help to restructure the lead following the advice in WP:Lead, and to look over WP:Writing better articles for a firmer idea of how to structure encyclopaedic articles. I think there's some good research gone into this, with some interesting information, which would be very useful; however, I think the article could be copy-edited and restructured to better assist the general reader in accessing the information. SilkTork✔Tea time 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I mentioned that before in another article, mostly that it appeared to be a textbook or lecture point, but only parts of "Freedom of speech and expression" and "Freedom of speech and debate in Parliament" seem to be real issues. In my previous and other discussions, I did not think this rose to WP:ESSAY. While it is NPOV, it does lecture a little bit more than I'd like, but I personally didn't feel it was a failing issue. I'm also a bit tough as a reviewer - but sometimes these government and legal articles need more hand-holding than others. Its definitely not FA class prose and tone, but its not far off the mark. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I was extremely surprised to see this being passed as a Good Article with two significant and serious templates still at the top of the article. If the templates still hold, it has no business being considered a Good Article; if they don't, then they should be removed. At the moment, the incongruity of the incompatible templates and GA icon is extremely disconcerting. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid I don't see why this article is claimed to be written too much like a personal essay, or why the lead section is allegedly not long enough. As regards the latter, I thought it struck a good balance between covering the substance of the article without being of excessive length. — SMUconlaw (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
