Talk:Voting rights in Singapore/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I will do this review. I'll place comments here as I go through the article.
- The introductory section covers general background on the right to vote. I think most of this should be cut; this sort of material belongs in the parent article, right to vote.
- Adding a note to say that the same applies to the extensive details given for other countries in the section on felony disenfranchisement; however in both cases I will pass this for GA with no changes. Particularly for the latter section, the details given could usefully be added to the other articles, and I'd encourage any students working on these articles to move the material.
"Otherwise, with control over a simple majority of Parliament, a ruling party, if it chose to, could direct amendments to the PEA or create new legislation to provide some citizens with, say, double the number of votes and protect this from constitutional challenge using a notwithstanding clause." I think that "notwithstanding clause" needs an explanation here.
Fixed: I added some explanatory text. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
When Jack Tsen-Ta Lee is mentioned the reader should be given the source of his expertise: "Law professor Jack Tsen-Ta Lee" or whatever it might be.The paragraph beginning "Thus, in the manner..." needs simplification -- that's a very complicated sentence structure."though citizens posted by the Government to study or to work abroad and their families were exempted": I think I know what this means, but it's poorly phrased and should be restructured.The government's justification for suspending overseas voting in 2001 wasn't immediately clear to me -- why would Singaporeans be in danger? Reading the cited speech made it clear that the concern was about having large numbers of Singaporeans congregating at known locations at known times at a time of heightened terrorist threats. I think something to that effect should be added to the article.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've completed the review; I'll place the article on hold to allow time for the issues to be addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: I have managed to make a brief return from my hiatus, but may disappear for another few days (around Vesak). Kindly check my efforts to address the last four points. The term notwithstanding clause links to an article about Canadian law, which is probably not what is intended, so professor Smuconlaw will have to clarify the term. For the first point, I (and Smuconlaw) would prefer to leave that alone. --Hildanknight (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Your fixes look fine; once the "notwithstanding clause" is clarified I will pass this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed: I added some explanatory text. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Your fixes look fine; once the "notwithstanding clause" is clarified I will pass this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: I have managed to make a brief return from my hiatus, but may disappear for another few days (around Vesak). Kindly check my efforts to address the last four points. The term notwithstanding clause links to an article about Canadian law, which is probably not what is intended, so professor Smuconlaw will have to clarify the term. For the first point, I (and Smuconlaw) would prefer to leave that alone. --Hildanknight (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Everything is fixed; I am passing this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)