Talk:M Ravi/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll start with some spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version. I'm going to stop there and fail this. Out of eight checks, based on eleven sources, one was fine, one I don't have access to, and the rest either have close paraphrasing or copying issues or are not supported by the cited sources. I would recommend going through every citation in the article to check for these issues, and renominating when you're confident they're all taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FNs 24 and 25 cite "Another of Ravi's leading constitutional law cases was that of Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General, which took place after a cleaner sued the Singapore government for not having an election after a member of parliament was expelled from his seat." I don't have access to FN 25; FN 24 supports almost all of this, but can you quote the text from FN 25 that says Vellama was a cleaner, and whatever supports "leading"?
 * FNs 26 and 27 cite "From 2009 to 2015, Ravi represented Yong Vui Kong, a then 19-year old Malaysian citizen who was sentenced to death for drug smuggling. The landmark case raised legal issues concerning human rights, including the constitutionality of judicial caning, as well as the reviewability of the clemency process and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion." FN 26 appears to have no connection to this.  FN 2009 supports only that Ravi was his law, but not the dates, or the second sentence.
 * FN 37 cites "On 16 December 2020, Ravi was charged with criminal defamation after he published a post on his Facebook page alleging that Law Minister K. Shanmugam "controls" the Chief Justice of Singapore. On 3 March 2021, the Attorney-General's Chambers issued a warning to Ravi in lieu of continuing the criminal proceedings, after he deleted the post, apologised, and undertook not to repeat the allegations." This mostly supports the text, but there's a close paraphrasing issue -- the source says "he has to delete the offending post and publish an apology and an undertaking not to repeat the allegations".  There's also a slight logical error: the source doesn't say he deleted the post, just that that was a condition.
 * FN 35 cites "The Law Society appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, and on 22 March 2023, Ravi was found guilty of misconduct and suspended from practice for five years." The date can't be right -- the source is dated 21 March.  I don't see mention of the Supreme Court; the source says "Court of Three Judges" -- is that the Singaporean equivalent?  And I don't see that it was an appeal, though perhaps the mention of the higher court implies that?
 * FN 43 cites "Since 2019, Ravi has been the founding director of M Ravi Law, a firm with offices across Southeast Asia." I think this goes beyond what the source says -- it's WP:ABOUTSELF, which means we have to be careful not to overstate it. He only mentions two actual offices, one in Myanmar and one in Thailand, so "across southeast Asia" is too strongly phrased.
 * FN 53 cites "When Kho Jabing, a convicted murderer, was sentenced to death in 2016, Ravi applied for a motion in-person to stall the execution in the capacity of an activist, despite not having represented Kho in the case." Verified.
 * FNs 56 and 63 cite "In 2017, Ravi was ordered to undergo mandatory treatment after he attacked fellow lawyer and opposition party politician Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, whilst experiencing a manic episode." Verified, but the phrase "fellow lawyer and opposition party politician" is taken directly from the source, and "ordered to undergo mandatory treatment" is too close to "ordered to go through an 18-month mandatory treatment".
 * FN 38 cites "On 14 May 2021, the Court of Appeal ordered Ravi to pay S$5,000 to the prosecution after they found that he had acted improperly in making an "unmeritorious" bid to reopen the case of convicted drug trafficker Syed Suhail Syed Zin, whom Ravi had represented pro bono. The court said that Ravi had brought an application without any real basis, misrepresented certain facts in his affidavit, and made baseless allegations against Syed Suhail's former lawyer without giving him a chance to respond." Verified, but most of this is taken directly from the source.