Talk:Flag of Singapore/Archive: GA review

Failed GA.
Lead section is too short. Some sections, like "Display of non-Singaporean national emblems", are very difficult to understand. Good references, but no references in "Other flags of Singapore" section. --Kaypoh 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My comments are as follows:
 * I disagree that the lead section is too short. It is meant to be an overview of the article, not to repeat substantial portions of what is in the article.
 * You say that "[s]ome sections" are "very difficult to understand", but have not explained which sections (except for one) and why. In my view, they are understandable, including the section "Display of non-Singaporean national emblems" that you singled out.
 * I do not think references are needed in the "Other flags of Singapore" section. For more information, readers can click on the links to read other articles, such as "President of Singapore" and "Republic of Singapore Navy".
 * Pending your further comments on the matter, kindly put the GA nomination on hold rather than failing it. &mdash; Cheers, Jack  Lee  –talk • contribs • count– 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked again, and yes, I agree that the "Other flags of Singapore" section doesn't need references.
 * WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The lead section should have a bit more info about the history and importance of the flag, and the rules about its use. Try and make it two or three paragraphs.
 * I think a lawyer wrote half the article. See the first sentence of the section I said was difficult to understand. "Under the National Emblems (Control of Display) Act,[36] no person shall display in public or at or within any school any national emblem,[37] that is, any flag, banner or other emblem being or purporting to be the flag, banner or other emblem of any state, or the flag, banner or other emblem of any political organisation claiming to be a national movement in any state or any likeness or resemblance however reproduced of any national leader or former national leader of any state or the leader or former leader of any such political organisation." It's so long, but what is it saying?
 * I also think that the article writes too much about the rules on how to use the flag, but not enough about the history of the flag and it's place in Singapore national pride/culture.
 * This is my second GA review (my first is Free software). If you are not happy with the review, you can start a GA/R. --Kaypoh 05:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kaypoh:
 * Lead – let me see what I can do about it. I think it's important not to read WP:LEAD too rigidly. Where the article is not very long, it doesn't make much sense to reproduce large portions of it in the lead.
 * Rules on use of the flag – the lawyer who updated the article would be me. If the only section that is difficult to understand is "Display of non-Singaporean national emblems", let me have another look at it. I am reluctant to change too much of the wording in case it makes it different from what the law actually states, which would be misleading, but will see what I can do.
 * History of flag and cultural value – this will be more difficult to update. Apart from what is already in the article, I have not come across any materials that deal with these aspects of the flag.
 * If you think that the article can achieve GA status if the first and second matters that I've mentioned can be approved, then kindly put the GA nomination on hold rather than failing it outright. However, if you think that the article cannot achieve GA status without the third matter being dealt with (which, I have said, will be difficult to fix due to a lack of information on it), then I suppose you'll have to leave the GA status as it is. &mdash; Cheers, Jack  Lee  –talk • contribs • count– 15:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please try to find some info about the history and cultural value of the flag. If you add a section about it I think you should move the paragraph about the song "Five Stars Arising" there. If you really cannot find any info, it's OK. GA is not FA. GA only needs the article to be broad, not comprehensive.
 * I can understand about 70%-80% of the "Guidelines for usage" section, but 0% of the "Display of non-Singaporean national emblems" section. The other sections are OK. Try to use less lawyer language so people can understand what the law says about how to use the flag.
 * OK, I will see what you can do about the lead. You did a good job with this article and it is nearly there. By the way, next week I will be busy, so if I take too long to reply, go ahead and start a GAR. --Kaypoh 04:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kaypoh:
 * Lead – I've expanded the lead slightly. It's now two paragraphs long.
 * "Display of non-Singaporean national emblems" section – I've reworded and reformatted part of the section. Hopefully it's clearer now.
 * History of flag and cultural value – there is already a section dealing with the origin of the flag, so I added a section on the flag in Singapore culture.
 * Let me know if you're able to review the article again. If not, I'll start a GAR as you suggest. Thanks. &mdash; Cheers, Jack  Lee  –talk • contribs • count– 03:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've renominated the article. &mdash; Cheers, Jack  Lee  –talk– 04:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review and comments
I've decided to request a second opinion on this article's GA status, for two reasons. Firstly, the majority (>75%) of the GA reviews I've done in my time here, and the vast majority (~90%) of my recent GA reviews, have all been in the music area. I sure as hell feel a lot more comfortable reviewing an album/song/band article than I do reviewing one about a flag (I took this article because Hildanknight politley asked if I could). The second is that, based on my lack of experience in reviewing this area, and my lack of knowledge about flags, I don't think I'd be able to accurately judge this against the "broad in coverage" criterion. The 2nd opinion reviewer may also know very little about flags - I don't know - but I'd rather be sure. Sorry for the (already) long wait, and the longer process still - but hopefully this can get to FA...it certainly has the length :) Now, for some things to fix...


 * If there are any relevant wlinks for the second paragraph of the lead (relating to governing of use of the flag), they would be useful and appreciated.
 * I'm afraid there aren't, really. Anyway, more information can be obtained from reading the relevant section in the body of the article. &mdash; JackLee.
 * "the Union Flag flew" - Should this be the Union Jack? See, this is what I meant when I said I know nothing about flags...it's just I've heard of the UJ (as we have it in Aus, on our flag still) but not of the UF (I'm also doing this offline, so I can't check if they're one and the same).  O yeah, and Toh mentions the Union Jack in his quote...so yeah....
 * In Wikipedia, "Union Jack" redirects to "Union Flag". It seems there is some controversy about the appropriate term for the flag, and "Union Flag" is preferred: see "Union Flag". &mdash; JackLee.
 * "Also made public that day were the Coat of Arms of Singapore or State Crest and the National Anthem." - I think you should make mention of the anthem's name, not just link to it.
 * Done. &mdash; JackLee.
 * "On 30 November 1959 the Singapore State Arms and Flag and National Anthem Ordinance 1959[4] was passed to regulate the use and display of the State Arms and State Flag and the performance of the National Anthem." - It seems logical (considering the ref's content) that it be placed at the end of the sentence.
 * I think it makes more sense to put a reference to the citation of the Act of Parliament immediately after the name of the Act. &mdash; JackLee.
 * "The flag was adopted as the national flag upon Singapore's full independence on 9 August 1965.[2]" - I think this should be placed in the previous paragraph, rather than as a standalone sentence.
 * Done. &mdash; JackLee.
 * I don't see the point of the prose and table in the "Elements and symbolism" section, as they both say (almost exactly) the same thing.
 * Agree. The table has been removed by another editor. &mdash; JackLee.
 * For ref 7, you're linking to a google cache page. You should thus use the |archivedate= and |archive= parameters (i think those ones, anyway) on cite web (with Google Search as the archiver, and the date you visited the cache page as the archivedate)
 * The cache page no longer exists, but I did another Google search and found an alternative website to refer to. &mdash; JackLee.
 * "...organisations during the month of August to mark National Day on 9 August." - Is there an article or anything for Sg's national day? National Day Parade is wlinked in the image caption - is that it? (Compare: Australia Day)
 * There's no article on Singapore's National Day itself. "National Day Parade" describes the celebratory parade that is held in Singapore on National Day. &mdash; JackLee.
 * I don't think you should say "sars" - just say the full name (severe acute respiratory syndrome) for those who don't know what it is (as you can get the gist if you read "syndrome", but not if you read "sars", and thus may not need to click the wlink).
 * Done. &mdash; JackLee.
 * "and pushed Singapore Airlines into the red for the first time" - Red = Loss (as opposed to profit), right? Clarify this...
 * OK, have changed this to "caused Singapore Airlines to suffer a loss", although I personally think that "into the red" is an expression well known enough not to require rephrasing. &mdash; JackLee.
 * The second paragraph of the "Guidelines for use" section seems to me to contradict the previous one - there it said that the rules allowed you to fly the flag all year round (with restrictions) in 2004, here it's saying you could fly it from July to August in 2006......"minimal restrictions" is only mentioned later on, so you may need to clarify this.
 * Have reworded the second paragraph. Hope it's clearer now. &mdash; JackLee.
 * "The use and display of the flag is governed by Part III of the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules[12] made under the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act" - You need some punctuation before the ref - a comma would work best here.
 * I feel that a punctuation mark shouldn't have to be inserted where otherwise unnecessary simply to ensure that footnote numbers have a punctuation mark before them (which, in any case, is also unnecessary). &mdash; JackLee.
 * Refs 6 and 12 point to the same page (http://www.sg.com/explore/Singapore_Arms_And_Flag_And_National_Anthem_Rules.pdf)
 * There's a difference in the references. In footnote 6, the reference is to the Second Schedule of the Rules, and Lee Kuan Yew's book is also cited. Footnote 12 is a reference to the Rules as a whole. &mdash; JackLee.
 * Ref 13 needs full formatting (publisher, accessdate, etc.)
 * The way the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act is currently referred to is the conventional way in which Singapore legislation is referred to. I think it's a good idea to keep it the way it is. &mdash; JackLee.
 * I'm concered that the "Proper use and display" section transcends into a retelling of the law in relation to this flag, and I'm really not sure if that's necessary or appropriate...I'll look around more, but I'd also be interested to see/hear your thoughts.
 * I think it's useful to set out relevant legal provisions relating to the national flag. In the case of the flag of the United States, there is even a whole article – "United States Flag Code" – on the subject. However, since the Singapore provisions are less extensive, I feel that it's more appropriate to deal with the subject in the main article itself. &mdash; JackLee.
 * Refs 14 to 40 could realistically be combined, as far as I can see....
 * I'm afraid I disagree. It is more useful for a reader to be told precisely which provision of law is being referred to, rather than a non-specific reference to the relevant Rules as a whole. &mdash; JackLee.
 * "During the National Day celebrations period, the flag may be displayed on any vehicle (other than a hearse), vessel or aircraft in a manner that does not give rise to any disrespect to the Flag." - Some wlinking (vehicle, hearse, vessel, and aircraft) would be good.
 * I think links to "vehicle", "hearse", "vessel" and "aircraft" are unnecessary. These are all well-known terms. &mdash; JackLee.
 * "on the right as seen by the standard bearers[27] (that is, on the left from the viewer's point of view)." - Ref should be at the end of the sentence.
 * I've put the footnote number after "standard bearers", because the rest of that sentence is not part of the legislation referred to in the footnote but was added by me for clarity. &mdash; JackLee.
 * "(Immunities and Privileges) Act[45] have been conferred under that Act;" - Place the ref after the semicolon
 * See my comments above regarding footnote 13. &mdash; JackLee.
 * Again, I think it makes more sense to put a reference to the citation of the Act of Parliament immediately after the name of the Act. &mdash; JackLee.
 * Ref 45 needs publisher/accessdate/etc. formatting
 * "although this is incorrect as such vessels are required to hoist proper national colours[50] either when entering or leaving port." - Put the ref at the end of the sentence after the full stop (.)
 * Done. &mdash; JackLee.
 * The "In culture" section could do with more wlinking.
 * I don't think there are any other terms that require Wikilinking for explanation. Links should not be included simply for the sake of having more of them. &mdash; JackLee.
 * Wow - this article has had a spoken version for over a year!? I think it might need to be updated - the chances of the current article resembling that version are slim...
 * Sorry, I've got no idea how to do this. Another editor will have to help out. In any case, that shouldn't affect whether the article achieves GA status. &mdash; JackLee.

Reviewed version:

Good luck! If you like, you can leave a note on my talk page when you've done this stuff (it's watchlisted anyways) and I can take another look at prose etc. If you leave a note at GAC talk, you might get a 2nd opinion offered a bit quicker. Cheers, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for taking the time to review this article. Based on your suggestions, I've made some revisions. My comments are above. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 02:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dihydrogen Monoxide, the GA criteria requires articles to comply with six style guidelines. The guideline that references should go after punctuation is not one of them. I Not Stupid achieved GA status despite violating this guideline.
 * However, I agree that the "Guidelines for use" and "Display of non-Singaporean national emblems" should be shortened. It should stick to the most pertinent details. As I previously told Jacklee, "Not everyone is as interested in legal details as you (a lawyer) are".
 * Articles should generally be kept under 32 kB unless the topic cannot be adequately covered in an article of that length. Hence, at 38.6 kB, the article is too long. Besides the "Guidelines for use" and "Display of non-Singaporean national emblems" sections, there are two long paragraphs in the "In culture" section. Trimming them should bring the article back to an acceptable length.
 * With regards to wikilinking, Jacklee is correct; we should only make links that are relevant to the context. Finally, I think that the lead section needs to be expanded and improved. Hopefully we will get a second opinion soon, so Jacklee can be rewarded for the effort he has put into this article.
 * --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The punctuation thing is more of a pet hate of mine. Anyways...waiting for a 2nd opinion now - does anybody mind if this goes off my watchlist (filling up)? &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  22:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that footnote numbers should generally be placed after punctuation marks that are already in the article (see "Citing sources"), but it should not be necessary to insert unnecessary marks just so that this rule can be complied with! What happens now if you take this article off your watchlist? Do you need to be notified again after a second reviewer has had a look at the article? &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the next person to look at this will pass/fail it - I have no more input, really :) &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  08:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Once again, thanks very much for your help. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 12:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be the second reviewer for this article. I feel there is a need for reorganizing this article with what content is already there, so I have done this prior to the review (below). This article is now on hold. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review/Comments - 2nd opinion by Ncmvocalist

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

This is quite good for the majority, but there are a couple of things worth noting. Editors are advised that the following needs to be addressed within the next 7 days, so that this article may become a "Good Article".

The article should be summary style, and I'm not satisfied that this is the case in the Usage section(s). There are many bits that can be joined together, and many other bits that can be left separate from each other in the subheadings under this section. Please summarise the article (i.e. don't just restate the law). For example, rather than "No person shall treat the flag with disrespect, No person in possession of the flag shall allow or cause the flag to touch the floor or ground, even when lowering the flag from a staff or flagpole" try "By law, nobody is allowed to treat the flag with disrespect [15], or let the flag touch the floor or ground when lowering it from a flagpole or staff [16]". Please bear in mind that you are writing for an encyclopedia - don't just simply restate the law as is; summarise it and make it clear and concise unlike the Act itself. It doesn't have to be as specific as the Act itself, but must have all the main points of it in an easy and readable way. The parts of the law that concern National Day celebrations for example, can easily be merged into the National Day section. This will not only increase the article's quality, but it will make it easier to read and more like an article, rather than just a mere partial reproduction of the Act. There is also a lacking of an infobox. My suggestion to editors of this article is to follow a style similar to that in the article, Flag of the Philippines, like a template/checklist.

I am not sure how long editors will require to make the above changes so that it can become a true Good Article like the Flag of the Philippines article. However, if the above changes are made, and all the criteria is satisfied throughout the article, then this article will become a GA. Editors have no more than 7 days to achieve this. Good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jacklee, I told you to trim the "Guidelines for use" section! Thanks for the review, Ncmvocalist. However, I disagree with some parts of your reorganisation:
 * The "Construction" section should be a subsection of "History", not "Design", as it is more about the history of the flag than about its current design.
 * The subsections of the "Use of the flag" section should not have been made subsections of the "Guidelines for usage" section. There is a clear distinction between the use of the flag and the guidelines for such use. In fact, if the section about the guidelines were shorter, it could be made a subsection of the "Usage of the flag" section.
 * Why is the "Other flags of Singapore" section now a subsection of the "Guidelines for use" section, when that section only has captioned images of other flags and has no information about any usage guidelines?
 * --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above, I have reverted part of Ncmvocalist's reorganisation of the article. Any further disputes about said reorganisation should be settled through discussion on this talk page. It appears that Jacklee, the primary contributor to this article, has not been notified that the nomination has been placed on hold. I will drop him a note shortly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In re: to the parts you disagreed with, in respective order Please note that the reorganization was just to give a vague idea of what is expected in terms of the way material should be organized, so was not perfect, as editors were expected to make the necessary changes to follow a similar format, rather than the previous format. I'm pleased to note that some (if not all) of these may have been made.
 * Agreed that Construction should be part of History
 * I still have some issues with this, although, there would be none if it weren't repetitive in content....
 * The other flags of Singapore is vague. Is it a law that these flags only be used for these people/places/events? Or is it more of a unwritten custom? Or is it just an extra? In the latter case, then I would agree with the current editions made. If not, then this section should not exist, as each part should be incorporated into the other sections.

Editors have approximately 3 more days to make the necessary changes from the review itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made the following revisions to the article:
 * I've merged the "Construction" section back into the "History" section, because the text in there really related to the history of the flag. Furthermore, unlike in the article "Flag of the Philippines", there is no specific construction information about the national flag of Singapore in the article which makes it appropriate to have such a section.
 * The "Usage guidelines" section has been rewritten in a prose style.
 * Another editor has moved many of the flags that used to be in the "Other flags of Singapore" section into the infobox at the top of the article. As for the remaining flags (the President's flag and the Air Force service flag), at the moment I do not know of any law regulating their use.
 * I hope that the article is now in the form to be accorded GA status. Merry Christmas! &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to aforementioned moving the national ensigns into the infobox, I did some additional copyediting to clarify the sequence of events leading to the flag's adoption (it was in fact adopted six months after, not "upon", self-governance), to avoid re-purposing prose found at expatsingapore.com. I also hedged the claim about the flag not being used at sea; according to Flags of the World, it is, but only as a jack, not an ensign.  Someone might want to find a better citation for this, and include information about the Singaporean jack in this article as well. --ScottMainwaring (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the construction sheet for the naval ensign before, I need to find it again. I have emailed the national government on many occasions for a construction sheet and they never, ever sent one to me. As for the other flags, no early idea. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of information on the website Military & Paramilitary Flags of Singapore (including information about the use of the national flag as a naval jack at section 2.3.B.I), but the author does not cite any references. Would it be sufficient to refer to this website? Some construction details about the national flag are available at http://flagspot.net/flags/sg.html, and the construction sheet for the civil ensign is available at http://www.mpa.gov.sg/circulars_and_notices/images/mc99-13b.gif. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The law is quoted in green text and quotations. I know the site author so I can ask him what his sources are. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sites hosted on GeoCities are usually not reliable sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Zscout370. I think the green text contains cross-references to other parts of the webpage. But it's great to hear that you know the site author. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know him by trading flags with him. I just got a digital camera, so I will try and take pictures of my flag and see if they will be of any use. I can try and make a construction sheet for the national flag, just need some time. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The conversion of the "Usage guidelines" section from a list to prose is a step in the right direction. However, the "In general" section still needs to be shortened. Only the most important, relevant and interesting details should be included. Is the "Display of non-Singaporean national emblems" relevant in an article about our national flag? If not, the section should be removed. At 39.5 kB, the article is too long; for a variety of technical reasons, try to keep your GAs under 32 kB.--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My view is that laws prohibiting the display of non-Singaporean national emblems highlight the primacy given to Singaporean national emblems, but have no strong feelings about this subsection being removed if other editors feel otherwise. As for shortening the "In general" subsection, I think it's fine as it is. All the information stated there is directly pertinent to the flag and interesting. The 32 kB guideline is merely a guideline. I've had an article that was in excess of 32 kB achieve FA status. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 12:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It still reads like part of a legal document, not part of an encyclopedia article. Converting the lists to prose is the first step, not the only step. The next step would be to rewrite the "In general" section in summary style. Zscout370 has removed the "Display of non-Singaporean national emblems" section. We shall see what Ncmvocalist has to say. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess we'll have to disagree on this point. I don't think the "In general" subsection currently violates the guideline to write in a summary style, and there really isn't enough information to spin off into a separate article which is why I feel it is fine the way it is. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid JLWS has picked up on the section I have a problem with, however, our reasons may differ. The writing/prose needs to be improved in the 'in general' section or this article will fail (is it really worth letting the article fail over the one section?). I believe what is covered in this section is of importance (so cannot be removed as such), however, it needs to be edited appropriately.


 * Please note: while I have said it is of importance, I do wish to emphasise that there is no essential need to state every single law/rule that exists, as long as there is a general summary. You will find that most editors (including myself) prefer another approach - this is an example of how this will work: "By law, no person may treat the Singaporean Flag with disrespect. The law/rules specify that no person may allow the flag to touch the ground or floor, even when lowering the flag, nor may they display the flag below, or dipping in salute to any emblem, person or thing. The law/rules also specify that the flag should always be aloft and free, so should not be displayed or carried horizontally." Tightening expression like this will always help.


 * Further down the 'In General' section, "The law also specifies that when the flag is displayed outside a building, it should be displayed on or in front of the building. It must be...." At the beginning of each paragraph, insert the authority (whether it is a law or some other utterance or document). Don't specify each and every time what law it is, because this is what your footnoting should cover. Be prompt in making these changes if you would like this article to pass. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ncmvocalist. I'm afraid I won't be able to work on the article within the next week as I'm out of the country between 7 and 14 January. Would it be possible keep the article on hold till 18 January? Of course, if another editor (like J.L.W.S.) would like to work on the article in the meantime he or she is welcome to do so. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support extending the hold period. If neither Jacklee nor Ncmvocalist have any objection to me rewriting the "In general" section in summary style, I will see what I can do. Are there any other issues that need to be addressed? Jacklee, enjoy your holiday (if you are on holiday) or may you clinch the deal (if you are on a business trip)! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a student, so it's partly work (attending a seminar on comparative law) and partly a holiday. :-) &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 20:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it's taken far too long as it is to make the proposed changes. So this means that the article's records will have to show that it failed - I will update the details at a later time. However, I can leave the GAonHold as if the article was renominated. Please make the necessary changes I've specified by the 18th as you have requested. I will point out any other issues (if there are any) by the beginning of next week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)