Talk:Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 18:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

I suspect that the nominator will not be able to respond to my GA review so I will be finishing the revisions and some minor corrections to this article. The case is definitely intriguing and the sources.

Prose is fine and well-written. Citations are sorted well and to the best of my ability (lacking actual court transcript, but having summary). They cover the aspect well and are proper. This goes in with factually accurate and verifiable. Broad in coverage, as it relates to the actual case, is almost too detailed. Is it neutral? The matter of the court, even if it was overturned is the proper stance. It is stable and all images are properly cited and used.

The article boarders on overly detailed, but a few sections specifically not used must first be addressed: the applications of the test (outside of the case) is unnecessary. The fact Yong Vui Kong v PP was not cited is all that is required to remove the WP:OR stating that while similar they were not cited. It is also unrelated to this case. The rational nexus test applied to Mohamed Emran bin Mohamed Ali v PP in 2008 also falls under this matter, while it is cited, it still does not happen to be relevant to this case. It may be improper to have the actual test background and its application by the Court of Appeals, however the main argument in finding whether or not the provision is constitutional. It required this test and distinction to be made. While lengthy it is key to understanding the Court of Appeals actions, especially the distinction of how it relates to equal protection.

I'm struck the unrelated sections out. The actual case is intriguing and technical, but I find no fault with the matter. In the grand scheme of the case, Taw and his conviction are largely secondary to the actual argument on the appeal 'the article is on this', because it had wide implications. This is typically done for the United States Supreme Court cases, where a clarification on the interpretation is more important then the actual case at hand. The Court of Appeals, as it relates to Taw was successfully argued and overturned the High Court and that is the key aspect, Taw who's previous sentence, then appeal and then the prosecutor's appeal which overturned the High Court was instrumental in interpreting the law. As much as I've mulled around the thought of wording, I really cannot fault the article. Other sources note that Taw's sentence was overturned. Such as the 01/10/1998 Singapore Straits Times; but the matter which the courts argued no longer concerned him and the case specifically (Taw v PP) versus the current PP v Taw. This case is not about Taw, but about the interpretation of the law. For these reasons, I am passing this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Anyway, thanks very much for reviewing the article and passing it. (By the way, Taw was acquitted by the High Court, and this is reported in the Straits Times article of 10 January 1998 that you mentioned. There was no change to this when the matter was brought before the Court of Appeal, because it was not an appeal but a criminal reference for questions of law to be considered by the Court of Appeal: see "Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong#Issues before the Court of Appeal".) — SMUconlaw (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, while some may argue that the case involving Taw should be covered I am under the belief (apparently correctly from my limited research) that PP v Taw was the question posed by the Appeals Court. Taw v PP was the previous case in which the High Court in which he was acquitted. I found the article to the Straits Times on a Google page. My ability to research the matter and do some fact checking was very limited, but everything checked out. Spent a few hours on it too. Very interesting and well researched! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)