Template:Did you know nominations/Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor

Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor

 * ... that in the 1980 case Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor, the Privy Council held that fundamental liberties in the Singapore Constitution should be given a "generous interpretation"?
 * Reviewed: Blood tables
 * Comment: The article was created on 18 October 2012 by moving it from a sandbox. The hook is evidenced by footnote 26.

Created/expanded by Feliciatwm (talk), Jenniferlee 91 (talk), Malleirej (talk), Mayumisoh (talk), Mr.makwk (talk), Tohjiawen (talk), Zhengpei (talk), and Zihui.lau (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 17:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)




 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough and long enough at time of nomination. Every image has an acceptable copyright for Wikipedia. Hook is properly formatted. QPQ is done.  Hook is interesting enough given the topic.  Hooked fact is supported by article with a citation.  As someone with an extremely limited knowledge of the topic, the article reads as neutral to me.
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Offline and paywall sources were not plagiarised to write and that they support the text.
 * Symbol question.svg There are a few niggle fact tags that need cleaning. --LauraHale (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Clean fact tags. --LauraHale (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article! I removed the following fact tags as I feel they are unnecessary:
 * After "This argument was rejected by the Privy Council" – the reasons for the rejection are stated in the succeeding paragraphs.
 * After "the courts reaffirmed the position in Ong Ah Chuan that the differentia used to define a class of persons in a statute has to bear a reasonable relation to the social object of the statute" – the statement is evidenced by footnotes 76–79.
 * After "The level of scrutiny to be applied in each case is dependent upon the particular facts involved" – the statement is evidenced by footnotes 113–115.
 * The remaining tags require me to check some offline sources. Will try and do that over the next few days. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅: I've added references and removed the remaining two fact tags. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Good to go. concerns addressed. Article is not fully sourced. --LauraHale (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you mean "now" fully sourced. :) — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)