Talk:Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 18:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC) I will review this and I will throttle the pace by doing them all, as they are of similar structure and relevance to Singapore. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• These refs need to be fixed before the review can continue. These being 404ed represent a verification problem.

1. http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=7a97e1b8-2bcb-44b1-9efa-3fa39974a056;page=0;query=DocId%3Af34d7a09-f1c1-40a9-aef1-43f20af67613%20Depth%3A0%20ValidTime%3A
2. http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=d12017f8-0f05-4ebc-abee-28abe10c2048;page=0;query=DocId%3Adff584d2-1d5d-4d9d-8aac-2f8d16dabdd3%20Depth%3A0%20ValidTime%3A
3. http://160.96.186.106/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00061338-ZZ - Ref issue and connection problem.

Placing on hold. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, the external link checker seems to be down, but the broken links are similar to those highlighted in Talk:Internal Security Act (Singapore)/GA1 and have been fixed. Kindly proceed with the review. --Hildanknight (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have been the case! Now for the rest of the review.

1. "of Singapore in order to try and protect the exercise of executive power" - Now, I now "try to" is a better tone, but "...to try to" is also weird. Any ideas on fixing that flow?
2. " time limit clause specifies a restricted period of time after which no remedy" - why do we need "of time" when we already specify we are speaking about time. Seems redundant.
3. "review except where there is a question as to whether the procedures set out in the Act were adhere" - Seems a bit wordy, can be fixed to remove the "As to" portion.
4. "During the course of his judgment, Lord Reid" - I think the bolded part is excess that can be safely trimmed as redundant.

Some other cases of redundancy in the words exist, but these are not particularly a GA issue because it flows better.

As a minimum, whenever you use quotes an inline reference is required at the end of the sentence. For example: " In particular, section 8B(1) confirmed the judgment in Lee Mau Seng by declaring that "the law governing the ... judicial review shall apply."

1. Another case is: "Lord Justice of Appeal Alfred Denning said that it was "well settled that the remedy by certiorari is never to be taken away by any statute except by the most clear and explicit words. The word 'final' is not enough."
2. And "The High Court held that the argument had to be rejected in the light of section 5(3) of the Act, which provided that the President's declaration that land was needed for a public purpose "shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for the purpose specified therein".
3. And "...the importance of Anisminic is that it showed that a material error of law renders a decision a 'nullity' so that the decision is in principle judicially reviewable"."

The block quote after "South East Asia Fire Bricks as follows" should hold the reference. The first paragraph of "Subjective or objective test?" needs a reference at the end. And a bit of a general check in other areas while addressing the issues might raise some more minor concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel the rule of thumb about a reference being required at the end of every quotation shouldn't be applied mechanically:

• As regards the sentence "In particular, section 8B(1) confirmed the judgment in Lee Mau Seng by declaring that 'the law governing the ... judicial review shall apply.'", a reference is redundant because it would just say "ISA, s. 8B(1)." The sentence itself already makes clear that the phrase "the law governing the ... judicial review shall apply" comes from s. 8B(1). Similarly, it is clear from the sentence "The High Court held that the argument had to be rejected in the light of section 5(3) of the Act, which provided that the President's declaration that land was needed for a public purpose 'shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for the purpose specified therein'" that the quoted part is from s. 5(3). This is also the case for the last sentence in the paragraph after the heading "Subjective or objective test?". It's clear that the quotations are from s. 10 of the ISA which is mentioned in the main text.
• As regards the other sentences mentioned in paras. 1 and 3 in your post above, the quotation in para. 1 is referenced by footnote 6. Since both of the quotes in the same sentence are evidenced by the same reference, it seems unnecessary to repeat the footnote twice. The same is true of the sentence in para. 3 – both of the quotations in the same sentence are referenced by footnote 19.
• As regards the block quote after "... the case of South East Asia Fire Bricks as follows", the reference is in footnote 39 which follows that phrase. Isn't that sufficient?

— SMUconlaw (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:GA requires some adherence to policy for verifiability, it is actually a requirement for any direct quote to cite the source with an inline reference - previous citation is not an exception to this. Specifically, WP:MINREF states direct quotations, in this case taking verbatim from another text or quoting someone's words, requires a citation. This is a matter of verification and while I may be more incline to let the acts go without too much inline citation (end of paragraph or such) - the quotations absolutely need inline references per policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but in the situations mentioned above, why isn't it clear what the references are? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of verifying the statement without a moment's hesitation and to properly attribute the statement per community consensus. MINREF is part of the GA criteria, hence, I do ask that it be cited. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have dealt with the four cases of redundancy. The Denning citation was placed before the quote, so I moved the citation to after the quote, which would be clearer to readers. Similarly, the Southeast Asian Fire Bricks citation has been moved to after the quote. In addition, I duplicated the citation to the Anisminic quote. --Hildanknight (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I have asked for clarification at "Wikipedia:Inline citation#Multiple quotations from the same source in consecutive sentences". Feel free to comment there. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh professor, your link salah lah! Should be Wikipedia talk:Inline citation#Multiple quotations from the same source in consecutive sentences. Ho seh, first time got chance to correct atas professor! --Hildanknight (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The link that Smuconlaw provided was wrong, so I posted the correct link. My first time correcting a professor! --Hildanknight (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll pass it now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)