Template:Did you know nominations/By-elections in Singapore

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: by Victuallers (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

By-elections in Singapore

(

)

... that in a 2013 case the Singapore Court of Appeal held that the Prime Minister was wrong to say he had discretion under the Constitution not to call a by-election to fill a parliamentary vacancy?

Reviewed: Tie the Knot (TV series) and A Walk Across America.
Comment: This hook contains two articles, both of which were moved from sandboxes. The article "By-elections in Singapore" was created on 31 May 2015, and the article "Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v. Attorney-General" was created on 7 June 2015. The hook is referenced by footnotes 36–40 in the "Court rulings" section of the "By-elections in Singapore" article.

Created by Bluelily2014 (talk), Fixmypapercut (talk), Ft.pang.2012 (talk), Huaipin (talk), Kaiyeang (talk), Leetihyah (talk), Limchishen (talk) and Siewann.tan.2012 (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 06:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC).

.(alt2 shorter)~~... that in a 2013 case the Singapore Court of Appeal held that the Prime Minister was wrong to not call a required by-election?~~

Suggest that a shorter hook is more likely to get attention Victuallers (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

But then ALT1 omits the second highlighted article, "By-elections in Singapore". This was supposed to be a two-article hook. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes .... alt1 is now alt2 Victuallers (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I still think the original hook is more accurate. The Court of Appeal didn't actually say that Prime Minister should have called the by-election – by the time the appeal was heard, the by-election had in fact already been called. What the Court said was that the PM had been wrong to assert that in these situations it was entirely up to him whether or not to call a by-election. The Constitution requires a by-election to be held, though the PM has broad discretion as to when it is to be held. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

These two articles were new enough when nominated and are long enough. The hook facts have inline citations and the articles are neutral. I was unable to assess whether there were any copyright issues because of the technical nature of the sources. Going for the original hook. No QPQ has been done so I will donate one of mine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)