Talk:Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 13:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I shall be starting this review soon and welcome input from others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

The article seems very well written and organised to me. There are just a couple of minor points that I noticed as I went through it:

• I think this sentence needs a comma after "common law": (#1, A procedural or substantive concept?)

"Traditionally, at common law natural justice is taken to be a procedural concept that embodies the twin pillars of audi alteram partem (hear the other party) and nemo iudex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his or her own cause)."

 Fixed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think this sentence needs the addition of "the" before Constitution: (#2, Customary international law)

"The Court of Appeal clarified in Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor (2010),[4] that customary international law cannot be read into Constitution for two reasons.

 Fixed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is it possible to find a reference that backs up the statement: (#1 Abortion)

"Laws permitting abortion would thus be unconstitutional. This issue has yet to come before the Singapore courts." I am not too concerned about this last point as proving a negative is difficult. Perhaps the sentence could be rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Prose is satisfactory. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Layout is good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Yes. b (citations to reliable sources): Yes. c (OR): No original research as far as I can see.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Yes. b (focused): Yes.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Yes.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: It is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Yes. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Reasonably appropriate and add to the visual appeal of the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Article reaches good article criteria.

Great! Thank you. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)