Template:Did you know nominations/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act

Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act

 * ... that the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act of Singapore allows restrictions to be placed on religious leaders who promote political causes under the guise of religious activity?
 * Reviewed: Ballet Manila
 * Comment: The hook is referenced by footnote 8. (Online link at footnote 5.) The article was created in a sandbox and moved into the main article space on 11 October 2011.

Created/expanded by Eugene.chan.2008 (talk), Gnettics (talk), Kenneth.tan.2009 (talk), Semathew.2009 (talk), and Vkbelani.2008 (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 12:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is not expanded five-fold from its previous revision done on 10 April 2011. --Lionratz (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC) (see discussion below)
 * As I mentioned above, "[t]he article was created in a sandbox &#91;User:Smuconlaw/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act; now deleted as the article has been moved – see the log on that page&#93; and moved into the main article space on 11 October 2011". — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article had already been created previously, so the sandbox edits cannot be counted as "new". And because the article was not expanded five-fold from its previous version as of 10 April 2011 (which is obviously more than 5 days ago), the article cannot be considered as "new" from the expansion point of view.--Lionratz (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the correct interpretation. "Did you know" states: "Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." [Emphasis added.] The article was worked on in "User:Smuconlaw/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act" between 17 January and 11 October; on 11 October at 03:29 I moved it to the article mainspace with the edit comment "moved User:Smuconlaw/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act: Created article by moving it from a sandbox". Thus the fact that there was a previous version on 10 April 2011 in a sandbox is not relevant. This article was the product of a university project – my students worked on it between January and April 2011, and then I (the instructor) tidied it up this month and finally moved it into the article mainspace. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * New is new in article space. Time in user space is not counted. It is still new by DYK rules. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the misunderstanding above. I have reviewed the article as follows:


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Should be okay, AGF on offline sources. However, I would suggest citations in sections like "Developments" to be placed after every line, like what you did in the "Sedition Act" subsection. Additionally, I would suggest that citations should be placed after punctuations as per REFPUNC. Again, sorry for the silly mistake that I have made above. --Lionratz (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for reviewing the article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)