Jump to content

Talk:High Court of Singapore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 30, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
April 14, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 5, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the High Court of Singapore (Supreme Court Building pictured) is the sole court in Singapore exercising original criminal jurisdiction that may impose the death penalty?

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:High Court of Singapore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The content that is here is very good, but there's a lot of material missing that should be in a court article before it attains GA status.

  • There are some sizable gaps in the content - the history of the court, judges past and present, jurisprudence, appointment of judges. You might want to take a look at Supreme Court of the United States and High Court of Australia for some good examples of court articles that do well where this one seems to fall down.
  • I almost feel as if the article could just about be renamed Jurisdiction of the High Court of Singapore. What's there is terrific, but as well as leaving out a lot of material as described above, it also offers a confusingly intricate level of detail. This is particularly evident in the section concerning the court's original jurisdiction - unless the court has a far more active approach to original jurisdiction than most other superior courts (in which case that would itself warrant notable discussion), this takes up way too much of the article. Rebecca (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Just wanted to say (in case my responses buried above were not noticed) that I've reviewed the article, made further changes, and that it is ready for further GA review. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a cursory look at the article and it it looks promising enough that in light of the GA backlog I may be willing to review it and with additional work on your part promote it to Good Article status. This, however, would be my first time reviewing a Good Article nomination. Would this be all right with you or would you prefer to wait for a more experienced reviewer to take this up? Lambanog (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was asked by another party whether I was currently reviewing this article, for clarity the answer is no pending an answer from the nominator. I also realized afterward that Rebecca may already have done a previous review and would be in a better position to take a second look. I will defer to them or anyone else who may want to take a more active role due to my relative lack of inexperience in this area for now. Lambanog (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer

[edit]

Following this note at the nominator's talk page and as User:Rebecca has withdrawn, I am taking over this review. I shall read the article first and aim to post my first review notes within 24 hours. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    On reading through this article for the first time, I found that the language was rather too formal, even legalistic in tone. Looking into this further I found that some sections were direct copies or close paraphrases of various statutes and legal judgements that were easily found on the internet. Whilst some limited attributed quoting of material is permissible, nowhere does this material appear in quotes. As I found no GFDL or CC licenses this material represents a copyright violation. Some examples below.
    1. The High Court has jurisdiction to try all offences committed within Singapore; on board any ship or aircraft registered in Singapore; by any person who is a citizen of Singapore on the high seas or on any aircraft; by any person on the high seas where the offence is piracy by the law of nations; by any person within or outside Singapore where the offence is punishable under the Hijacking of Aircraft and Protection of Aircraft and International Airports Act[53] or the Maritime Offences Act;[54] and in any place or by any person if it is provided in any written law that the offence is triable in Singapore. is lifted from [1] Copyright©2010 UNODC, All Rights Reserved, Legal Notice
    2. Within ten days from the time of any judgment, sentence or order passed or made, a District Court or Magistrate's Court may, either with or without a written application from a party to the proceedings, reserve for the High Court's consideration any question of law arising in the proceedings. [2], section 261
    3. The High Court has general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction over all subordinate courts. If it appears desirable in the interests of justice, the Court may, either of its own motion or at the instance of any interested person, call for the records of any matter or proceeding in a subordinate court, whether civil or criminal, at any stage. It may then order that the matter be transferred to the High Court or give the subordinate court directions regarding how the matter should be conducted, as justice may require, [3], Sections 31 and 35 as cited in DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA PERMOHONAN JENAYAH NO. 05 – 65 – 2005 (W)
    4. The High Court hears and determines the questions of law arising on special cases, then either affirms, amends or reverses the determination in respect of which the special case has been stated, or remits the matter to the district judge or magistrate with its opinion on the matter. [4], section 262
    5. Where the Chief Justice considers it necessary or expedient to improve efficiency in the administration of justice and to provide for more speedy disposal of proceedings commenced in the High Court, he may direct that such classes or description of proceedings are to be heard and determined by the District Court. [5]
    Comment: The passages were not taken from the Internet but from various relevant Singapore statutes. I suppose I didn't change the wording of the statutes too much as I was concerned about not distorting the meaning of the statutes. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but you need to attribute them with a citation and making it obvious that they are quotes. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indicated where the citations are below:
    1. The citation is in footnote 52. I don't think there is any way to rephrase the text further.
    2. The citation is in footnote 105. I've rephrased the sentence.
    3. The citation is in footnote 108. I've done some rephrasing.
    4. The citation is in footnote 107. I've rephrased the sentence.
    5. The citation is in footnote 41. I've done some rephrasing. — JackLee, 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding the citations - however I think that the article still falls down on the major points raised by Rebecca at the beginning of the review. The bulk of this artcile consists of a rehash of the statutes that set it up. Have you looked at the articles suggested by Rebecca, Supreme Court of the United States and High Court of Australia, to which I would add Court of Chancery. It is really rather full of minutiae with no engaging prose. Also I note the cites, but some passages have been lifted verbatim, so they need to be in quotes. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All online references check out, assume good faith for off-line
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I feel that there is still too much intricate detail here. A summary style should be used, rather than copying or closely paraphrasing parts of statutes. The legalistic tone is inappropriate for a general encyclopaedia. Rather than intricate detail of the various powers and jurisdictions. Take a look at UK Supreme Court and US Supreme Court. Some detail of notable judges and cases should be included as well as comments on the court by other bodies and lawyers.
    Consider what you are trying to achieve with this article; is it a summary of the history, functions and notable people and judgements of the court; or is it a detailed paraphrase of the statutes which set it up in its present form?
    Comment: I'd say the purpose of this article is a summary of the functions of the court. I think information about notable judges and cases should be in the article "Supreme Court of Singapore" rather than here. I only included information about the history of the court here because the previous GA reviewer suggested it, and personally feel that the historical information should go into the "Supreme Court of Singapore" article. If it is placed in this article, it will have to be repeated in "Supreme Court of Singapore" as well as in "Court of Appeal of Singapore". The High Court of Singapore is only one of the divisions of the Supreme Court. — JackLee, 20:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, frequently material has to be used in several articles, please check out WP:SUMMARY for guidelines on summary style. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already put information about the history of the court in the article, so no problem there. However, I really don't think it is appropriate to include information about notable judges and cases here. Unlike the US Supreme Court which only has one division, the Supreme Court of Singapore is made up of two divisions: the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is the highest appellate court of the nation (and thus equivalent to the US Supreme Court), while the High Court hears appeals from the Subordinate Courts and also hears cases at first instance, which may be appealed to the Court of Appeal. Thus, decisions of the High Court are not necessarily final. It seems to be better to talk about notable Singapore cases in either the article "Supreme Court of Singapore" or "Court of Appeal of Singapore". As regards judges of the High Court, I had a look at "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" and "Supreme Court of the United States", but neither of those articles mentions notable judges, unless what you mean is a table containing the names of judges. That is already available in the article "Judicial officers of the Republic of Singapore". — JackLee, 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WEll teh artcile still fails on tehse points as noted above. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No real improvements have been made to the scope of the article or its readability. At the moment, I believe that it does not meet the standards for listing as a Good Article. If you disagree with my decision, please nominate for a community re-assessment at WP:GAR. I suggest that you ask for a WP:Peer review and when the article is sufficiently improved, please re-nomiate at WP:GAN. 18:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)–– Jezhotwells (talk)
    I respect your decision but I note that you haven't responded to my comments. This article is not comparable to articles such as "High Court of Australia", "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" and "Supreme Court of the United States" because, as explained above, the High Court of Singapore is not the highest appellate court of Singapore (that would be the Court of Appeal of Singapore). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on High Court (Singapore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Court (Singapore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High_Court_of_Singapore&oldid=1199936846"