Template:Did you know nominations/Constitution of Singapore

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Constitution of Singapore

(

)

~~... that the Singapore Constitution (pictured) in force on 9 August 1965 was not drafted as a single document but was made up of provisions drawn from three separate statutes?~~

ALT 1: *... that the Singapore Constitution (pictured) of 9 August 1965 had provisions from the 1963 Singapore State Constitution, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act?

Reviewed: Les Twins
Comment: The article was expanded with content from a sandbox on 25 December 2012. The hook is evidenced by footnotes 8–11.

Created/expanded by Benjaminloh.2010 (talk), Charissahan (talk), Chin Wan Yew Rachel (talk), Geraldthamky (talk), Jasminelim.sh (talk), Jonchua.sm (talk), Lippymongoose (talk), Lord terentius (talk), and Zhihao.loy.2010 (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 14:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazing expansion; the first edit has a size change tag of + 108,065! The article is now long enough (that's an understatement, really), new enough, the hook occurs in the article and is properly supported---although, only ref 11, the legal paper, is reasonably independent from the State of Singapore, 8-10 are not independent sources. Ref 11 supports the entire hook and ALT1. I spot-checked five available references and found no plagiarism, and I hope I'm not supposed to check the other 179 as well. A few small issues remain:
1. The expansion began on 24 December, not 25, at least when UTC is taken as the yard stick. Not sure if it is necessary to shift this nomination to Dec 24.
2. The picture is probably not very valuable at a resolution of 100x100 pixels. If it is, the description needs to be changed (for instance, Article 155 pictured), and it needs to be checked whether copyright really allows this duplication, I am not an expert on this.
3. In the original hook, in force on sounds strange to me. Maybe "since"?
4. In ALT1, of 9 August 1965 likewise looks a bit strange to me. It was obviously not written on that day. As there is no subsequent constitution, this phrase could be left out, or it could be made clear that it took effect on 9 Aug. --Pgallert (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment:: Thanks for reviewing the nomination. I used the wording "of/in force on 9 August 1965" because on that date (which is the date the Constitution came into force) the Constitution consisted solely of provisions from the three sources indicated in the hooks. Since then, the Constitution has been amended 46 times and thus contains provisions not originating from those sources. If we were to use "since 9 August 1965" the hook would not be strictly accurate. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  - OK, I see your point, thanks for clarifying. I think for the original hook this is no problem, as "drafting" a constitution normally is only done once, unless it is being completely rewritten at some time. So the original hook could become:
    ALT 2: *... that the Singapore Constitution that came into force on 9 August 1965 was not drafted as a single document but was made up of provisions from three separate statutes?
  - And ALT1, as it makes no claim of exclusivity (only three statutes), could simply be (I tried to link something that describes the formation of the State of Singapore, but Malaysia Agreement might not be the appropriate article):
    ALT 3: *... that the Singapore Constitution contains provisions from the 1963 Singapore State Constitution, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act?
  - (I would think that it is extremely unlikely that even 46 amendments kill every trace of any of those documents, but that's of course a bit of WP:OR). --Pgallert (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Both ALT 2 and ALT 3 seem fine to me. Yes, I think there are still provisions in the Constitution today traceable to the three statutes mentioned. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus to me (ALT2 or ALT3, without the pic), but I cannot approve a hook I suggested. --Pgallert (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Article is both long enough and its expansion is new enough. Both ALT 2 and ALT 3 are appropriately referenced and I have struck through the original hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)