Template:Did you know nominations/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 23:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act[edit]
- ... that the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act of Singapore allows restrictions to be placed on religious leaders who promote political causes under the guise of religious activity?
- Reviewed: Ballet Manila
- Comment: The hook is referenced by footnote 8. (Online link at footnote 5.) The article was created in a sandbox and moved into the main article space on 11 October 2011.
Created/expanded by Eugene.chan.2008 (talk), Gnettics (talk), Kenneth.tan.2009 (talk), Semathew.2009 (talk), and Vkbelani.2008 (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 12:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The article is not expanded five-fold from its previous revision done on 10 April 2011. --Lionratz (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)(see discussion below)
- As I mentioned above, "[t]he article was created in a sandbox [User:Smuconlaw/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act; now deleted as the article has been moved – see the log on that page] and moved into the main article space on 11 October 2011". — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- The article had already been created previously, so the sandbox edits cannot be counted as "new". And because the article was not expanded five-fold from its previous version as of 10 April 2011 (which is obviously more than 5 days ago), the article cannot be considered as "new" from the expansion point of view.--Lionratz (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the correct interpretation. "Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria" states: "Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." [Emphasis added.] The article was worked on in "User:Smuconlaw/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act" between 17 January and 11 October; on 11 October at 03:29 I moved it to the article mainspace with the edit comment "moved User:Smuconlaw/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act: Created article by moving it from a sandbox". Thus the fact that there was a previous version on 10 April 2011 in a sandbox is not relevant. This article was the product of a university project – my students worked on it between January and April 2011, and then I (the instructor) tidied it up this month and finally moved it into the article mainspace. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- New is new in article space. Time in user space is not counted. It is still new by DYK rules. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the correct interpretation. "Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria" states: "Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." [Emphasis added.] The article was worked on in "User:Smuconlaw/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act" between 17 January and 11 October; on 11 October at 03:29 I moved it to the article mainspace with the edit comment "moved User:Smuconlaw/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act: Created article by moving it from a sandbox". Thus the fact that there was a previous version on 10 April 2011 in a sandbox is not relevant. This article was the product of a university project – my students worked on it between January and April 2011, and then I (the instructor) tidied it up this month and finally moved it into the article mainspace. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize for the misunderstanding above. I have reviewed the article as follows:
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lionratz (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) |
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) | Lionratz (talk) |
Should be okay, AGF on offline sources. However, I would suggest citations in sections like "Developments" to be placed after every line, like what you did in the "Sedition Act" subsection. Additionally, I would suggest that citations should be placed after punctuations as per Wikipedia:REFPUNC. Again, sorry for the silly mistake that I have made above. --Lionratz (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
