Talk:Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 13:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I shall be starting this review in the next few days and welcome input from others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial comments[edit]

I have now looked more closely at this article and find in general that it is well written, has good spelling and grammar and a satisfactory layout. I am not knowledgeable on the Constitution of Singapore and am not considering whether the legal matters in the article are correct but whether it is well laid out, is generally broad in its scope and considers the various aspects and deals with them satisfactorily.

One thing I notice is that some of the paragraphs have an in-line citation in the middle of a paragraph, such as #2 and #3 in the section, "Three-tiered scrutiny". This leaves the remaining sentences in the paragraph unsupported by a citation.

Fixed: the footnote was in the wrong place. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead section, I think the second sentence of #1 should be rephrased.

Fixed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Stage 2: Intelligible differentia", the last 2 sentences of #2 could do with some extra punctuation.

Fixed: OK, added a comma and did some rephrasing. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Unreasonable legislative objectives", the second sentence of #3 needs attention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the grammatical error. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is of high quality.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article is well laid out and complies with the manual of style.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sourcing is good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Topic is fully covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No editing wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	A well written and informative article.

Great! Thank you. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]