Talk:Legitimate expectation in Singapore law/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 17:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

Let's start the review, I know its been a long time waiting. I am no expert on Singapore's laws and courts, but I'm going to give this a shot.

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.	Too technical at times. Being a law subject this may be unavoidable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No concerns.
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.	Unable to access the physical sources, but I see no reason to doubt their existence. Clarification/additional information, please.
	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).	No concerns.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers the topic well, not much of a topic to discuss as a whole.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Goes into too much detail, the matter of the English court decisions should be nuanced, but not explained in full, such information should have its own article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral for all intents and purposes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit 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.	No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Several of the pictures are off-topic. Concerning those of the UK section.
	7. Overall assessment.	Needs some work, almost there.

My major concern comes from the lengthy section detailing the UK rather then Singapore. This seems to be largely off-topic. Also, much of the source material I cannot acquire or view, thus I cannot validate a good portion of the claims. Is there anything that can be done to address this matter? This is a situation in which I would have to go on limited information. Any additional comments and information would be beneficial and appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. Here are my responses:

2a: I don't think reliable online sources are available for this law topic. I think you will just have to assume good faith for the offline sources.

3b: Singapore administrative law is largely based on UK administrative law, so discussion of the UK legal position is relevant to Singapore.

6: Which images do you think are off-topic, and why? I don't think any of them are off-topic.

— SMUconlaw (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking for a good reason in which to quash my concerns. I'm no expert on Singaporean law. The matter of the images was by extension, if the UK section was off-topic (I see it is necessary for context, but was a bit overly detailed for my liking) then the pictures would be off topic. Though I have found nothing of concern. So I will pass this. It is a good article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, glad I could help. Thanks very much! — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)