Template:Did you know nominations/Re Fong Thin Choo

The following is an archived discussion of Re Fong Thin Choo's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Carabinieri (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC).

Re Fong Thin Choo

(

)

... that in the 1991 administrative law case Re Fong Thin Choo the Singapore High Court (building pictured) held that a public authority's decision can be invalidated if based on an incorrect fact?
ALT1: ... that in the 1991 case Re Fong Thin Choo the Singapore High Court (building pictured) held that a public authority's decision can be invalidated if based on a misconception or ignorance of a fact?

Reviewed: Andy Mineo
Comment: The article was created by moving it from a sandbox on 19 January 2013. The hook is referenced by footnote 11.

Created by Kaden-ghz (talk), KONGzhenning (talk), Zzeggy (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 18:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, though I am yet to undertake a plagiarism check. Before I do, it would be good for the hook text to be more explicitly included in the prose. Should only be a 30 second job :) Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the nomination. Could you clarify if you are suggesting that the article or the hook be reworded? As indicated, the hook is referenced by footnote 11. See also footnote 13. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that footnote 11 is used twice, and neither time is it citing the specific hook ("a public authority's decision can be invalidated if based on an incorrect fact"). Indeed, the wording of the hook is closer to that in the section headed "Applicability of the ground of error as to material fact in Singapore", which would benefit for a rewording of the first paragraph to make the point clearer (ensuring it remains cited). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I rephrased the text at footnote 34 slightly, and also reworded the hook (see ALT 1). Hope that's better. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Further review needed now that issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Approved. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 22:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)