Template:Did you know nominations/Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor
- The following discussion 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: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor
[edit]... that the High Court of Singapore supported by a judgment in 1994 the deregistration of the Jehovah's Witnesses made by the Government in that country?
- Reviewed: Comaster schlegelii
Created/expanded by Smuconlaw (talk), Joshuatanxr (talk), Lowshjasmine (talk), Marghuangmz (talk), and Watermelonfarmer89 (talk). Nominated by Hahc21 (talk) at 12:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough, and is fully supported by sources. The hook is included in the article. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Can the hook please be reworded so it's more clear and interesting? If it needs to be untangled to figure out what happened, it isn't "hooky". BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- ALT 1: "... that in the 1994 case Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor the Singapore High Court held that a ban on Jehovah's Witnesses and their publications did not violate their freedom of religion?" — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, SMUconlaw. The new ALT1 hook is much more effective, and at 194 characters, is valid in terms of length. Can I ask you to point out where the various hook facts are inline sourced (sourcing must be no later than the end of the sentence with that fact) in the body of the article? I can find the various (uncited) statements in the article's intro, but it's too daunting for me to search it out over the course of the article. (And, if any of it happens not to be so inline cited, please just add whatever's needed.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- The existence of the bans are evidenced by footnotes 1–3, and the Court's conclusion on freedom of religion by footnotes 14–19. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1 only approved and appropriately sourced; rest of article per Thine Antique Pen's review above. Again, thanks to SMUconlaw for assistance. Original hook has been struck as confusing. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- The existence of the bans are evidenced by footnotes 1–3, and the Court's conclusion on freedom of religion by footnotes 14–19. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
