Talk:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 22:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Be warned: this is a topic I know absolutely nothing about, so I can't make a content review. Consequently, this will be a more "technical" review, meaning that I can focus only on prose, structure, and references. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got interrupted. It happens.  Will work on review now, I hope. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Please address my concerns, including assuring me that my good faith is well-placed, and it should be an easy pass. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose and MOS issues fine. I'm not familiar with the structure of legal articles, but taking it on its own, the prose is clear and readable.  I suggest that you have a legal expert CE and PR this article, especially if you want to take it further to FAC.  I see no prose and MOS issues that prevent it from becoming a GA.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * This isn't something I can really judge, but I'm assuming good faith and trusting that the nominator, who seems to be an knowledgeable and experienced editor, knows that the references are reliable. My only concern is OR; I need assurance that this article doesn't go into commentary or opinion.  Many of the references cite the Singapore Constitution, which is great, and non-web published rulings and journals.  I have no problem with using sources that aren't easily accessible (it's something I often do), but the problem is that there's no way for reviewers to check for accuracy and close paraphrasing issues.  This forces me, as a GA reviewer, to assume good faith.  I recommend, therefore, that you take it to PR or better yet, to WP:WikiProject Law.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Very impressive in its scope and focus. I appreciate the "History" and "Invocations of the constitutional reference process" sections and how they go into the effects of the tribunal.  Well done.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Again, I must assume good faith. As a non-expert, it seems non-biased to me.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I wonder if you could have more images in this article; currently, there are only three. I understand sometimes there's a limited choice of images, but I wonder if you could add images of some of the people you mention, or even of some more government buildings.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Hi, and thanks for reviewing the article. However, apart from looking into adding more images, I'm not very sure what you would like me to do. Are you suggesting that I ask for a peer review? — SMUconlaw (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There's very little for you to do.  I suppose I just you to answer the following questions:  Are the sources in this article reliable and appropriate for this kind of article?  Did you plagiarize the sources you use?  Does it veer into OR, commentary, or opinion?  If you answer those questions satisfactorily, then I can pass this article to GA.  I suggest, after it gets to GA, that you take it to PR, but that has no bearing on its passing.  IOW, just tell me what I want to hear. ;)  I trust that you'll be honest. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this article was a student project and I was the law professor who supervised it. I think it generally meets the requirements you refer to. — SMUconlaw (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that! Will go pass now.  Congrats. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)