Template:Did you know nominations/Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law

The following is an archived discussion of Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Carabinieri (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law

(

)

... that in Singapore administrative law, it is illegal for a public authority to fetter its discretion by sticking rigidly to a policy?

Reviewed: Andy Mineo discography
Comment: The article was created on 29 January 2013 by moving it from a sandbox. The hook is supported by footnotes 12 and 20.

Created by Adachua (talk), Andrealim2010 (talk), Ernestkohel (talk), Seanlwh1 (talk), and Sirajshaik1988 (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 17:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I am an English major and am unable to understand any of the lead. The first sentence is not grammatically correct, and judicial expressions are being used instead of plain English. Can you copyedit the lead, and any other sections that a layman wouldn't understand? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find it hard to see how not a single part of the lead section is understandable. Can you identify which sentences are unclear to you? Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

First sentence: What is a "ground"?
Can you define ultra vires here so I don't have to look it up?
What does "depute" mean?
I made a few grammatical changes while I went over the lead for you. Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes. Does it read better now? — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Much better! I looked through article and found everything in order. The article is new enough, long enough, well-referenced, and every paragraph has at least one citation. The only thing I don't see is a citation next to the hook fact. (This could be done in the second line of the lead.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes 12 and 20, as indicated above. I don't think it's necessary to put an additional footnote in the lead section as all the information in it appears in the body of the article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Offline hook refs AGF. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for taking the time to review the article and the nomination. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)