Talk:Constitution of Singapore/GA1

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 18:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this and I will throttle the pace by doing them all, as they are of similar structure and relevance to Singapore. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, in going through the articles, this one merits a quick fail, but because its also very important and you wanted these to be throttled. I'll do them slowly. First of all, this entire article is on "Constitution of Singapore", but it doesn't actually tell the reader anything about its contents. The history and legal matters are great, the entire article is well done, but it is so far off the mark on the subject matter that it actually grossly misunderstands the topic. The "Subjects dealt with by the Constitution" is the key foundation of what the article should be. It does the reader no good to examine the legal matters of the constitution if they can't figure out what's in the constitution. For that reason, I'm apt to quick fail this, because on scope it fails and if you were to take the entirety of the page and move it to a new topic, the issue of the "Constitution of Singapore" is lost. A well-meaning piece of work, but writing about the wrong topic is nearly un-salvagable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing? I don't want to fail this, but I think I may have no choice. I have already looked through a few of the others, but I don't want to drop 20 reviews on you in the course of a week, but this is a major issue. If there is no response in a few days, I'll have to fail it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The professor acknowledged my notification, but as a section requires major expansion, I would prefer (and believe he would prefer) that you fail this and proceed to the next nomination. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. Will do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right that the article could do with more information in the "Subjects dealt with by the Constitution" section, but this would require a lot more time than I have right now. The rest of the article was expanded as part of a university course that I teach, but because the academic exercises had to relate to the course content, it was impractical to have students simply summarize the content of the Constitution. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)