Template:Did you know nominations/Presidential Council for Minority Rights
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Presidential Council for Minority Rights
edit- ... that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, a Singapore body that ensures laws do not discriminate against racial or religious minorities, has not issued an adverse report since its creation?
- Reviewed: François-Xavier Donzelot
Created/expanded by Aybaybayyy (talk), BlessedJacT (talk), Lianyi2010 (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hook: Short enough, interesting. AGF on offline source.
- Article: OR and Synth examples: "Hence, the referral of such an Act to the Council may be seen as a purely procedural step that has no real purpose or meaning." ; "This is especially significant, given that eight members is the minimum required for the Council to convene, and the five permanent members would make up the majority in a meeting convened with that number of members." New enough, long enough, formatted references used thoroughly. AGF on paraphrasing as sources are almost all offline. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Summary:
Please deal with the synth. Side note: I've changed the DYK credits, as the ones who receive credit are those who actually participated in the expansion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, let me look into the issue. (Might be a bit problematic, as I'm not sure if the above sentences were points made in any published material – I may just have to remove the sentences.) As regards the other editors, they were the students who created the expanded version of the article as part of a university project. I'm their instructor, and my role was essentially to tidy the text up, making sure it reads logically and is properly wikified, etc. All this was done in a sandbox. But I'll leave it to you to decide whether the article creators should be credited as well. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, sorry. I've added their credits back. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, let me look into the issue. (Might be a bit problematic, as I'm not sure if the above sentences were points made in any published material – I may just have to remove the sentences.) As regards the other editors, they were the students who created the expanded version of the article as part of a university project. I'm their instructor, and my role was essentially to tidy the text up, making sure it reads logically and is properly wikified, etc. All this was done in a sandbox. But I'll leave it to you to decide whether the article creators should be credited as well. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Good to go. AGF on offline sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)