Template:Did you know nominations/Separation of powers in Singapore
- 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 Ohc ¡digame! 03:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Separation of powers in Singapore[edit]
- ... that the Singapore Government takes the view that separation of powers is less important than choosing leaders that can be trusted and do not need to be fettered?
- Reviewed: György Dungyersky
- Comment: The article was created on 29 January 2014 by moving it from a sandbox. The hook is referenced by footnote 29.
Created by Cheangwaiian (talk), Deborahjoyong (talk), Jeremyyeap (talk), and Teoxuanlang (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 14:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC).
It seems that this article was not expanded fivefold within the last five days. I see you commented that it was moved from a sandbox, but looking at the history of different versions, the article is still not expanded fivefold - so if I'm misunderstanding something, clarify that please. smithers - talk 05:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. The article was worked on in a sandbox and then transferred into the article mainspace on 29 January 2014, so it is regarded as a brand-new article and not a fivefold-expansion of an old one. All editing that occurred prior to that date should not be considered for determining the "newness" of the article. See "Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria", paragraph 1(d): "Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage ... and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." Hope this answers your question. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. By how you worded it, it seems that this would qualify then, since the of the article is obviously a nonissue, and the hook is interesting and brief enough. The source is one from a book but I'm going to assume, since it is a publication of the Singaporean government, it backs up the hook. Sorry for my misunderstanding earlier, this one looks okay to me. smithers - talk 20:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. The article was worked on in a sandbox and then transferred into the article mainspace on 29 January 2014, so it is regarded as a brand-new article and not a fivefold-expansion of an old one. All editing that occurred prior to that date should not be considered for determining the "newness" of the article. See "Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria", paragraph 1(d): "Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage ... and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." Hope this answers your question. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
