Talk:Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC) I will do this review; I'll post notes here as I go through the article.

• "to punish for contempt of court" (in both the lead and the body) is not a very natural phrase; perhaps "to punish those found guilty of contempt of court"?
• The external link to the statute in the lead should be moved, per WP:EL; it might go in the external links section, or could possibly be placed in a footnote.
• "Despite the practice in other jurisdictions": is "despite" the right word here? (As above, this phrase appears both in the lead and the body.) Is the Singaporean practice in despite of the practice of other jurisdictions, or is it just in contrast to them?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is a more serious issue with this article which means it should not be promoted to GA at this time. It was written before a landmark case by the Singapore Court of Appeal called Shadrake v. Attorney-General (2011), and needs to be updated. Regrettably, I don't have time to do so at the moment. Perhaps it would be better to nominate Shadrake v. Attorney-General for GA first. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I decided to withdraw the nomination and would like to apologise to both of you for any incovenience caused by overlooking that. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's no reason why you would have known about the issue! :) — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)