This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sgconlaw. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
WP:ENDASH
WP:ENDASH states: "*Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry". "Russo-" and "Franco-" are prefixes, not complete words like "Polish" in "Polish–Lithuanian". Therefore, this move, which is about to affect Did You Know on the Main Page, should go back to a hyphen. Art LaPella (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. As you might be aware an editor, Kaypoh (talk·contribs), has nominated a large number of Singaporean politics articles for GA status. I was wondering if he was one of your students or if these articles were part of a project you were undertaking. I bring this up because concern has been expressed about whether this user is going to respond to reviews, which in turn will put a lot of reviewers off. If they are part of some assignment then it could be beneficial to add a note to them saying so. AIRcorn(talk)02:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have no idea who Kaypoh is. He or she is not one of my students. I did think it was a very bad idea to nominate so many articles at once, and judging from that editor's non-participation in improving "Group Representation Constituency" (in the end, the GA reviewer's comments were addressed by one of my students and by me), it is not clear that the editor intends to help bring the articles to GA status. I note from Kaypoh's talk page that someone else has already queried the large number of GA nominations, but unfortunately there has been no response. It is quite ironic that Kaypoh was congratulated for "all the work you did in making Group Representation Constituency a certified 'Good Article'" when no work at all was put in by the nominator. If other articles nominated by Kaypoh are reviewed I will see what I can do, but certainly cannot promise that I will be able to work on all or any of them within the brief time frame allowed for GA reviews. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The congratulations is just a standard templated message Quaddell sends out to editors who nominate a successful article[1]. The idea is right, to try and get successful nominators to review articles, but it is unlikely that he read the review. I and anyone else who looks at the review will know who did the work. I was thinking of proposing the removal of Kaypohs articles using his non-response as a further justification (imposing limits on nominations has already been discussed and there is a response from Kaypoh there). If you and some of your students are willing to respond to reviewers comments then this is a much better solution. To be fair all the articles I clicked on appear to be in good shape. On further investigation I see you are the major contributor to these articles. With your permission I would like to take this conversation to the nominations talk page, it would be good to let other editors know someone is willing to respond to those articles and maybe we can think of a way to accommodate you better. AIRcorn(talk)23:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The articles were initially prepared in sandboxes by my students as part of their coursework, and I edited them before moving them into the article namespace. Perhaps the way to proceed now is for someone to scan quickly through the articles produced by the Singapore Management University Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project and identify the ones that will require minimal changes, and remove the rest of the nominations. Although I managed to invite one of my students to help deal with the GA reviewer's comments for "Group Representation Constituency", we are in the middle of a semester right now so it will probably be difficult to get students involved in GA reviews. Also, frankly, I don't know how many will be interested enough to continue working on these articles now that the course is over and they get no additional credit for doing so. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I went through all of them and none stood out as being especially difficult to pass. They are well referenced, well formatted and to be quite honest look better than a lot of other articles that make their way through GA. I will review one completely myself to get a better idea of prose, tone, broadness, verifiability and other potential issues (let me know if you think one would be good to start with). I left a note at the talk page to let other reviewers know to also contact you if they conduct reviews and I will add a note to each article to the same affect. I don't think you will get too swamped with reviews as I expect the reviews will come in dribs and drabs. AIRcorn(talk)07:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, then, let's see if (my students and) I can cope with the reviews. Looking through the list, I think the following are probably good to go:
Professor Lee, as a veteran Wikipedia editor and fellow Singaporean, I would like to thank you and your students for contributing many high-quality articles to Wikipedia. That Kaypoh nominated them for GA review, one has already obtained GA status and Aircorn said none were difficult to pass, is a strong endorsement of your project. Currently only the top 0.5% of Wikipedia articles have been awarded GA (or FA or FL) status.
Since Kaypoh did not contribute to the articles he nominated, some editors may consider his nominations disruptive, but I beg to differ. The nominations offer us an opportunity to improve the articles and help them gain recognition (countering systemic bias in the process). How about inviting other editors to help you and your students handle the reviews?
Well, I think it would have been much better if Kaypoh had contacted me to find out if my students and I had time to work on GA nominations if he or she was not intending to do so personally after nominating the articles. I'm not sure what you want to put on this talk page. Can you explain? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
When an article is reviewed, the reviewer would inform you on your talk page. Suppose at least two other editors (including me) collaborate with you and your students, to handle the reviews. Could we use this section of your talk page to discuss matters pertaining to the collaboration? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I have put my name down to undertake GA reviews of your students' work. I am starting at the top of the list on the GA nominations page and hope to work my way through it. The first two articles on the list are Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore and Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore. I will make some initial comments on the GA review page for each article when I have read through them in the next few days. I hope you or your students will be able to respond. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Great work with the image, Professor! Would you happen to have his contact details? Perhaps that may enable us to ask him for a free image. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick{C}19:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen (Smuconlaw) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.
Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ(talk)15:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I've begun to review Legitimate expectation in Singapore law. I've posted my review at Talk:Legitimate expectation in Singapore law/GA1 and have marked Presidential Council for Minority Rights for review as well. My concern is the source material, is there any which in which an online or accessible version is possible. As I cannot personally view the information myself, while I do not doubt their existence, for the purposes of reviewing I just want to exercise good practices. For too long these articles have been avoided, they are intimidating, but very detailed. Three months is too long to sit 'un-graded' in my eyes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Prof, do you have access to the digital archives of the Straits Times through SMU Library? This could be achieved either directly or vide services like ProQuest, Factiva or LexisNexis etc. – [2] — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The links can't be restored because the Parliament Library has apparently stopped making its website searchable, and Straits Times articles are not available in a linkable form anywhere else on the Internet. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So in order to access Straits Times archives one has to either (i) buy the online subscription or (ii) go to the NLB where the print edition is available on film rolls. Thanks for the response. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
You can also do a search at NewspaperSG, but the full text of newer articles can only be accessed at terminals in libraries. Although older articles can be found online in full-text format, they cannot be linked to in Wikipedia articles because the NewspaperSG website's terms and conditions state: "The copyright in this website is owned by NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY or its licensors. No part or parts hereof may be ... hyperlinked ... without the prior written permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY." Thus, linking to such articles would be in breach of WP:ELNEVER. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of the part which states: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use." In this case, NewspaperSG has not licensed the work to users to link to freely. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Reading the content guideline in context leads me to believe that #1 is a reference to whether the third party website has acquired all the legitimate rights (license) required to reproduce the content through its service. NLB possesses the rights to reproduce the content, which means that hyperlinking to it would not be against Wikipedia Copyright policy and/or US law. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
NewspaperSG (or, rather, the National Library Board) has obtained rights from the copyright holders to reproduce the material on their website, but has specifically reserved the right not to permit other people to reproduce it or to hyperlink to it unless permission to do so is specifically obtained from NLB. Thus, doing one of the latter acts would technically be a breach of the copyrights held by the copyright holders and the NLB. It may be, though, that no copyright subsists in old material (e.g., dating to the 19th century) that has entered the public domain. In any case, I don't know whether links to content on NewspaperSG are stable or not as I've never tried creating such links. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
A better response to what I feel is missing from the article, complete with source and argument based in the laws limited the PCMR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I gave my opinion on the issues that have been raised, but as I haven't (and don't intend to) fully examine both articles, I shouldn't be the one to do a final approval (or disapproval). I think that's best done by you. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
