Talk:Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 18:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC) I will review this and I will throttle the pace by doing them all, as they are of similar structure and relevance to Singapore. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Review:

The article has some prose issues and quite a few tone issues. Here are the basic prose wording difficulties to start with:

• "in an unconstitutional manner"
• "ensures that that" - drop the second "that"
• "as to whether" - Making a repeat appearance in this article as well.
• "whether or not" - Same
• "immunities and privileges that are arguably belong to" - Flow issues
• "so as to" - please fix that.
• " Where the executive has best access to..." - "the best access" right?

I do not like the sheer amount of UK focus for the law matter, they are different countries and there is no real pressing need to have it be as detailed as this. It actually is likely stepping into WP:COATRACK territory with Threshold_issues_in_Singapore_administrative_law#Position_in_the_United_Kingdom_3. The picture situation has a few issues as well, with "Supreme Court of Singapore at night (HDR) - 20071115.jpg" being a duplicate of the lead's one, do we really need two pictures depicting it? The Causeway_Bay_View_from_ICC_201105.jpg is a little confusing for me - is Wing wanting to be cited in the usage or the page link to the image? I am not certain, but I cannot read Chinese. Could someone explain this or replace the image if it is. Anyways. This has a fair amount of work to do, but I'll give it a strict week. Okay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed some of the examples of problematic prose that you mentioned above. The remaining examples were left untouched because they were located within quotations. Technically, the two photos of the Supreme Court are not duplicates. One was taken at night and the other in broad daylight. This difference has no bearing on the article content, so I removed one image. Regarding the potential coatrack, I have requested input from professor Smuconlaw. --Hildanknight (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll pass this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)