Talk:Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put my name down to review this article and will be starting after the weekend. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First read through

This article is well written and comprehensive and seems to deal with the salient facts of the case. However, there are a few details that could be improved:

Could you clarify the sentence in #1 of the section "Facts and legal issues". Is S. Jayakumar the minister for two ministries?

"... by the Minister for Home Affairs and Law S. Jayakumar directing that they be detained for one year."

Another sentence that could be improved if it was rephrased is in #2 in the section "Use of foreign case law in deciding ISA cases":

"Furthermore, adopting the position of the majority in Liversidge v. Anderson meant applying a test formulated in World War II Britain in modern peace-time Singapore."

The last sentence of #1 of the section "Judiciary's role in national security" needs attention.

A rephrasing of the penultimate sentence in #3 in the section "Rule of law" would be useful. It also lacks a period at the end.

The caption for the first image could be expanded to state where the building is located.

I found it disappointing that the Constitution and ISA had subsequently been amended. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final read through

Some time has passed and nobody has responded to my comments given above. So I went through the article again, edited it to deal with the few points mentioned above, and decided it met the GA criteria on all counts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Whoops, sorry, missed seeing this review entirely. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]