Talk:Sources of Singapore law/GA1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Sources of Singapore law. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 4, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Yes, in clear and accessible prose, which is particularly important for articles in scientific fields.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Yes, to the extent it is sourced by links. My advice for further development would be to use more references to secondary sources, e.g. legal textbooks.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Certainly looks like it. That's of course hard to tell for me as a Continental European jurist, but there are no obvious gaps.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.
- 5. Article stability? Yes.
- 6. Images?: Only one nonfree image, with good fair use rationale.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Sandstein 06:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)