Wikipedia:Peer review/High Court of Singapore/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a GA reviewer felt that certain aspects of the article needed to be fixed in order for the article to achieve GA status, but I disagreed with his assessment. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Well PR is not for dispute resolution - if you disagree with the GA reviewer, I think you can take it to GAR. I have some comments and suggestions for improvement.
- Lead - unclear what the point of this sentence in the lead is: There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. I am reviewing as I read, so maybe this is clarified later, but I think that the sentence needs to relate these to the High Court of Singapore?
- In the History section I would make it explicitly clear that the first two paragraphs were under British colonial rule.
- At the end of History it would help to make it clearer that this is when the court was established Coming into force on 9 January 1970, the Act declared that the Supreme Court of Singapore now consisted of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court. - easy to miss it otherwise
- I would also give the year when the permanent Court of Appeal for both civil and criminal appeals was established.
- Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Court of Appeal of Singapore is linked twice in two paragraphs and five times in the article
- Court of Appeal of Singapore is also linked under See also, but WP:See also says that is usually for links not already in the article. Plus it is a redirect to Judicial system of Singapore and the redirect is also linked under see also.
- The word consitution makes me think of a legal framing document, not a way of describing the composition or makeup of the court (might be American English). Could a different header than "Constitution of the Court" be used? "Composition"? Or is this the standard terminology?
- Similarly, WP:HEAD says that subheaders should avoid repeating the header if at all possible - in the "Jurisdiction" section, the word jurisdiction is repeated in eight of the subheaders - is there any way it can be avoided (or, again, is this standard terminology?)
- Nice images - I think just the year could be given in the captions so "The Supreme Court Building
, photographed on 10 February[in] 2007" - The article is a bit listy - is there any way some of the lists could be converted to straight prose to improve the flow of the text?
- This is written at a fairly technical level and is a bit dry in places, but seems OK to me otherwise.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. Will take your suggestions into consideration as I think about how to improve the article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)