Talk:Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk · contribs) 01:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to review this article. My own editorial interest is in the law, and this section of Singapore jurisprudence is right up my alley. I'll do my best to review in a timely manner. At first glance, this article appears to be very strong, and thus any suggested changes will likely be a few minor structural/stylistic changes rather than comments on missing content. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	While a bit concerned about the depth of some of the subtopics, I'll take it in good faith that it really takes that much to describe Article 14.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is an excellent article. After reviewing it for 25 minutes, reading through a bulk of the content, I feel satisfied that there are no major issues to be fixed. The breath and depth of this article is incredible and I applaud the editors involved for getting it to this status. Congrats! I am moving to promote to GA right now. Lord Roem (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks very much! — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]