![]() | Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 15, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act of
Singapore that allows for suspected criminals to be
detained without trial has been renewed 12 times since its enactment in 1955? |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am in the process of reviewing this article. The review will be conducted based on the last revision before this comment. Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 07:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this article for good article review. I have assessed it against the six good article criteria, and commented in detail below:
1. Writing:
2. Sourcing:
3. Broadness:
4. Neutrality:
5. Stability:
6. Images:
As a result of the above, I am unfortunately compelled to fail the article since in my opinion, it requires a lot of rewriting and restructuring, with a change in focus, which could take some time to be addressed thoroughly. I would suggest you carry out more research about application of the Act and its criticisms, and incorporate these aspects into the article.
If you believe that I have applied the fail criteria inappropriately, or have any other concerns about the conduct of this review, you can list it on the Good article reassessment page for discussion by other GA reviewers. Alternatively you may wish to address the issues raised above and then renominate the article on the Good article nominations page. Please also feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 11:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, a new chunk of info regarding China workers in Singapore going on a so-called "illegal strike" has been added, to supposedly give an example of the Act in use. I don't see how this should be included in this article. I'm sure there are many examples of the Act in use; why choose this one? Also, look at the recentism of tis piece of news. Is it historically significant to be added in? Does it have enough due weight? I think not. This article primarily focuses on the act itself. As an alternative, methinks a better way would be to transwiki the part about the China worker illegal strike into Wikinews, and we can hook the Wikinews link somewhere in a "See also" or "Further reading" section. What do you think? Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 15, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act of
Singapore that allows for suspected criminals to be
detained without trial has been renewed 12 times since its enactment in 1955? |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am in the process of reviewing this article. The review will be conducted based on the last revision before this comment. Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 07:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this article for good article review. I have assessed it against the six good article criteria, and commented in detail below:
1. Writing:
2. Sourcing:
3. Broadness:
4. Neutrality:
5. Stability:
6. Images:
As a result of the above, I am unfortunately compelled to fail the article since in my opinion, it requires a lot of rewriting and restructuring, with a change in focus, which could take some time to be addressed thoroughly. I would suggest you carry out more research about application of the Act and its criticisms, and incorporate these aspects into the article.
If you believe that I have applied the fail criteria inappropriately, or have any other concerns about the conduct of this review, you can list it on the Good article reassessment page for discussion by other GA reviewers. Alternatively you may wish to address the issues raised above and then renominate the article on the Good article nominations page. Please also feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 11:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, a new chunk of info regarding China workers in Singapore going on a so-called "illegal strike" has been added, to supposedly give an example of the Act in use. I don't see how this should be included in this article. I'm sure there are many examples of the Act in use; why choose this one? Also, look at the recentism of tis piece of news. Is it historically significant to be added in? Does it have enough due weight? I think not. This article primarily focuses on the act itself. As an alternative, methinks a better way would be to transwiki the part about the China worker illegal strike into Wikinews, and we can hook the Wikinews link somewhere in a "See also" or "Further reading" section. What do you think? Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)