# Talk:Hugh Hickling

Pass The article is short, but clear, concise, and direct, with adequate citions and good grammar and writing style. Overall it's sufficient for GA, in my opinion.  The citation style seems a bit inconsistent, and the article is in need of a picture.  These will hold it back from FA status down the road, but are not enough of a problem to hold it back from GA status. Bradford44 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 08:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Peer review}} -- AGK [•] 14:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer review now archived at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hugh Hickling/archive1. AGK [•] 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(Clerical note) I've tweaked the formatting of this review, for my benefit when working on the improvements. No actual content of the review has been changed. AGK [•] 19:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This reads well for the most part and is interesting, but I don't think it would pass FAC in its present state. It has FA potential, though. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

The article is not yet comprehensive and would not yet meet WP:WIAFA parts 1b and 1c. At least two areas need further work, I think. First, I would try to include more information about the controversy that I assume must have occurred and must still be occurring around the Internal Security Act. What do opponents of the act have to say? Second, how was Hickling's  written work received by critics and by the reading public?


### Lead
The Internal Security Act link in the first sentence goes to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target. Also, it would be good to add ISA in parentheses, Internal Security Act (ISA), so that the abbreviation later makes sense by itself.
I'd be careful about overlinking. Most readers of English already know what "novel", "short story", "lawyer", "professor", and "ammunition" mean, for example, and I'm not sure it's necessary to link "civil service", "law academic", and some other things.


### Early life
"The ship was part of Convoy PQ-17, carrying matériel from Britain and the USA to the USSR." - Abbreviated terms are generally spelled out on first use. United States should be spelled out when used as a noun and abbreviated U.S. when used as an adjective. I'd spell out Soviet Union and link it on first use.
"they emigrated at his wife's suggestion that they move as far from England as possible" - Needs a terminal period, but more importantly, it would be good to add where they emigrated to. Also, in what year did the son die?


### Crown colony
"It is authorized by Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution, which stipulates that if an Act recites that action has been taken or threatened by any substantial body of persons, whether inside or outside the Federation in respect of certain situations – including organized violence against persons or property, the excitement of disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the government, or the promotion of feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population likely to cause violence – then any provision of that law designed to stop or prevent that action is valid notwithstanding that it is inconsistent with certain articles of the Constitution guaranteeing fundamental liberties." - Could this be re-stated in more ordinary English? It's not clear to me how an Act "recites", for example.
Just a comment from someone who worked on the first version of this article: in order to comply with Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution, the Internal Security Act "recites" or states that "whereas action has been taken or threatened by a substantial body of persons ...", and so on. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
"I could not imagine then that the time would come when the power of detention, carefully and deliberately interlocked with Article 149 of the Constitution, would be used against political opponents, welfare workers and others dedicated to nonviolent, peaceful activities." - This direct quote needs an inline citation right after the end punctuation.


### Academia and later life
"(which awarded him a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Law)" - To avoid the double nesting of parentheses, this might be better: "—which awarded him a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Law—"


### References and Bibliography
The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent. You can use 17 April 2007 as the model, or you can use 2007-05-05 as the model but not both.
Citation 8 and some of the other entries with URLs should include the date of most recent access.
What makes BRUNEIresources.com a reliable source per WP:RS? The paper is presented by a scholar in a scholarly manner, but was it vetted by anyone?


### Further reading
It might be better to eliminate this section. The obit from The Star does not seem to add anything not already covered in the main text. The link to the International Herald Tribune no longer links directly to the cited article but to a kind of redirect page. If the Tribune story contains fresh material, it would be better to use it in the main text and cite it there if you can track down the article's new URL.
Agreed and done. AGK [•] 19:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


### See also
The "See also" section usually appears above the "Reference" section in Wikipedia articles. However, in this case, I would just eliminate the "See also" section since it only repeats links that already appear in the main text.
Agreed; I've removed the section. AGK [•] 23:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Review written by Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC) and copied over by AGK [•] 19:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hugh Hickling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321180159/http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010418re.htm to http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010418re.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)