Template:Did you know nominations/Illegality in Singapore administrative law
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Illegality in Singapore administrative law[edit]
- ... that the Singapore High Court once held that, by refusing berths to a company running gambling cruises, the port authority had not fettered its discretion – a form of illegality in administrative law?
- Reviewed: Portsmouth FC Basketball Club
- Comment: The article was created in a sandbox and moved into the main namespace on 29 February 2012. The hook is referenced by footnotes 92, 94, 97 and 98: see "Illegality in Singapore administrative law#Application of a rigid policy".
Created/expanded by Alex.ng.2009 (talk), Claire.lopez (talk), Glen.chiang.2009 (talk), Pradeepconstiadmin (talk), Quekjieying (talk), and Yokteng.sim.2009 (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 17:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough based on date of nomination: Article moved from User:Smuconlaw/Illegality in Singapore administrative law on February 29, 2012, Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 312 edits ago on February 12, 2011. All images have copyright tags. Article reads as neutral enough to me. QPQ done. Hook text appears in the article and is supported by sources.
Hook with spaces is four characters two long. Needs to be made shorter. Propose alternative?
- I count 199 characters. Note that the ellipsis and question mark are not included in the character count: "Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Other supplementary rules for the hook, guideline C8. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Article is not completely supported by sources. A few fact tags need to be cleaned up.
- comment: I've dealt with three of the "citation needed" tags. The remaining ones were placed on introductory statements that essentially refer to what follows. For example, the tagged sentence in the section "Whether the public authority exercised its discretion wrongly" simply introduces the reader to the contents of the subsections of that section. I suggest that citations are not necessary for such statements. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Offline sources are free of plagiarism and support the text. Cited sources support hook text. --LauraHale (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Alternative hook needed. Fact tags need to be cleaned up. --LauraHale (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yes, please. The original reviewer has not responded to my comment posted on 15 March above. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- My response to LauraHale on 15 March was: "The remaining ones were placed on introductory statements that essentially refer to what follows. For example, the tagged sentence in the section 'Whether the public authority exercised its discretion wrongly' simply introduces the reader to the contents of the subsections of that section. I suggest that citations are not necessary for such statements." May I remove the remaining tags? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Close paraphrasing spotcheck