Talk:Sources of Singapore law

Sources of Singapore law was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 4, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 12, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Singapore Top‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sources of Singapore law. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.gov.sg/Publications/SO-merge%20with%20SO%20notes.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/landmark/%5B1988%5D_SGCA_16.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070110025503/http://www.subcourts.gov.sg/ to http://www.subcourts.gov.sg/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205133502/http://www.familycourtofsingapore.gov.sg/ to http://www.familycourtofsingapore.gov.sg/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070422205130/http://www.juvenilecourtofsingapore.gov.sg/ to http://www.juvenilecourtofsingapore.gov.sg/

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) 07:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

After reviewing the article, I am concerned that it no longer meets the GA criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There is uncited text throughout the article.
There are sources in the "Further reading" section that should be incorporated as inline citations
Much of the prose is examples of law, which are inapproriate for an article like this. Instead, the text should describe what is done and lists of statutes or laws should be its own articles.

Is anyone willing to fix up this article? Z1720 (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Sources of Singapore law

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of uncited text in the article, and sources that could be used in the article in the "Further reading" section. Much of the article contains examples of the law being implemented, and I think the text would be better served explaining the sources and impact on the law. Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.