Talk:Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have put my name down to review this article and will be starting after the weekend. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

First read through
This article is well written and comprehensive and seems to deal with the salient facts of the case. However, there are a few details that could be improved:

"... by the Minister for Home Affairs and Law S. Jayakumar directing that they be detained for one year."
 * Could you clarify the sentence in #1 of the section "Facts and legal issues". Is S. Jayakumar the minister for two ministries?

"Furthermore, adopting the position of the majority in Liversidge v. Anderson meant applying a test formulated in World War II Britain in modern peace-time Singapore."
 * Another sentence that could be improved if it was rephrased is in #2 in the section "Use of foreign case law in deciding ISA cases":


 * The last sentence of #1 of the section "Judiciary's role in national security" needs attention.


 * A rephrasing of the penultimate sentence in #3 in the section "Rule of law" would be useful. It also lacks a period at the end.


 * The caption for the first image could be expanded to state where the building is located.

I found it disappointing that the Constitution and ISA had subsequently been amended. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Final read through
Some time has passed and nobody has responded to my comments given above. So I went through the article again, edited it to deal with the few points mentioned above, and decided it met the GA criteria on all counts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Whoops, sorry, missed seeing this review entirely. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)