Talk:Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Smuconlaw in topic GA Review
 | Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 9, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that any act or statement which alleges bias, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in April 2010. Further details are available here. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)
- 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)