Talk:Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Smuconlaw in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 12:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll try and trim this backlog a bit more and review this one. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 12:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Through the lawsuit section so far and haven't found any issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Here's the issues I found:

  • "assures to the individual is the right to equal treatment with other individuals in similar circumstances." (Emphasis added.)" is emphasis added by you or by the source? If by you I'd remove since readers may misinterpret as the latter.
  • A delay between 2003 and 2008 is brought up as a main point throughout the article, but no detail is actually gone into what they were doing those five years. Add some of that information to the background.
    • Comment: The section "No inordinate delay" states: "The Court of Appeal also held that although there had prima facie been a delay, the appellants at the time had believed that the trustees and the authorities were engaged in settlement discussions that might lead to resolution of the dispute." Doesn't that explain what caused the delay? — SMUconlaw (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    It does, I was just curious if there was more to it then that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll put this on hold and give a week for the issues to be addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reviewing. See my comments above. — SMUconlaw (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Great! Thanks very much. — SMUconlaw (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply