Talk:Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEdinburgh Place Ferry Pier has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 20, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Photos[edit]

I have de-linked the historical photos of the protests pending better shots another editor may have. I find that the ones posted were regrettably of such poor quality that details were extremely difficult to discern, and thus have little merit. Ohconfucius 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing construct[edit]

I find this construction, in the Public protests section, amusing - what is it supposed to mean and where does the citation come from? The actual meaning of this construction is that the Government doesn't give a hoot about either historical significance or collective memory, and will demolish away regardless, which most HK people will think is true. Hahaha!

However, a "more sympathetic" interpretation may be that the Gvt is prepared to take the public views into account, and may grant reprieve where the case is strong enough. But the phrase would need amending in that case. Ohconfucius 03:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been putting the phrase through the Hong Kong government sites search facility to see if its from a press release, in the hope of being able to put the whole lot in quotation marks and keeping it. However I've had no luck so far, and I guess its an editor paraphrasing something heard or seen on the TV and radio. So I guess we'll have to rewrite it at some time.
It might be interesting to add something to the effect that the battle to save the pier was a flashpoint in Hong Kong in the debate over the perceived usurpation of public and private amenities by property developers and speculators aided and abetted by the Hong Kong Government. That usually the results of such developments destroy any local character and uniqueness to be replaced by identikit shopping malls and luxury aparments that exclude local businesses and residents. I think RTHK had a program to that effect a little while back.
I changed pitch battle to Pitched battle as I thought that the sentence was trying to say that both sides were intent on confrontation. I'm not saying "pitch battle' which is usually used in sport is exactly wrong, I can now see the intention writer is using it in making an extension from two sides contesting over possession of a sports pitch to contesting the physical possession of the pier but the use of a figure of speech here doesn't seem appropriate and may cause confusion. Maybe the phrase could be rewritten here to read "The pier became the centre of a bitter battle for possession between the Government and conservationists.KTo288 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
  2. :a (prose): b (MoS):
  3. :: Dates should be wikilinked - instead of it being December 16 2006 it should be December 16 2006.
  4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  5. :a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  6. :: References need to be formatted properly. Instead of having references before a full stop or comma etc, you need to have them after the full stop or comma, so it would look like when your viewing the article: ,[28] instead of [28],
    Lead section entirely unsourced.
    History Section
    1st Paragraph unsourced.
    The mechanism was manufactured by British company Edward John Dent, which also provided the mechanical signature to "Big Ben" of London. - Unsourced
    On the island side, various routes of the NWFB and Citybus, and Public light buses connect to many destinations on Hong Kong Island. - Unsourced
    Demolition Section
    After the protesters had been dispersed, the remainder of the pier was completely dismantled, away from the glare of publicity.
    1st Paragraph of Controversy section - unsourced.
    The following statement in the Architectural Importance section is unsourced:     Public opinion has resulted in alternatives put forth to preserve the clock tower, including moving the proposed six-lane road, or relocating the famous clock tower to the front of the new pier as a memorial. A reference is not formatted properly in the Public Sentiment section.
    In fact, when the imminent threat of demolition became known, the local community rallied to save pier, to widespread media coverage. In the weeks running up to the cessation of service from the Pier, thousands of Hong Kong residents arrived to post banners, and other messages in support of retention. - unsourced.
  7. It is broad in its coverage.
  8. :a (major aspects): b (focused):
  9. ::
  10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  11. :Fair representation without bias:
  12. ::
  13. It is stable.
  14. :No edit wars etc.:
  15. ::
  16. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
  17. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  18. ::
  19. Overall:
  20. :Pass/Fail:
  21. ::

I'm placing it on hold. If these problems haven't been recitifed in 7 days, it will be failed. Cheers, Davnel03 11:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First pass modifications to the article per comments - points dealt with now crossed out. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not been able to find the relevant sources for the remaining two items on-line, and I suspect I may have culled these from printed journals. In any event, I do not feel these statements are in any way contentious, but would appeal to any other editors to source them if possible. The absence of a source for these should not, I feel, stand in the way of the article achieving GA status, as there is no requirement that each and every fact be referenced. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to look at the above per my request. Kindly note that I do not intend to deal with some of the points you raised:

Dates should be wikilinked.
per WP:DATE:"Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." While there will undoubtedly some dates which require linking, I believe the vast majority do not warrant linking.
References need to be formatted properly - you need to have them after the full stop or comma.
While WP:MOS strives to achieve consistency within any given article, there is no requirement to use citation templates, nor prescription on whether the ref is placed before or after the punctuation mark. In fact, as I understand it, both are acceptable: Americans (e.g. The Chicago Manual of Style) tend to place it after the punctuation, while the British convention is before it. The only requirement in this connection, per WP:CITE, is that the "whole article should conform to that style".
Lead section entirely unsourced

The lead section in this article is very short, does not contain anything contentions, and is but a summary of facts which are dealt with in the main body of the article. Therefore, the reader will quickly and easily see where the relevant facts are sourced from. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until this point is done, I cannot pass the article. D.M.N. (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickYThe lead section now referenced according to your very strict interpretation of the policy. I would point out that WP:CITE states that "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source", the implication is that it may be unnecessary (and indeed some, including myself, consider it may be undesirable) to cite each and every phrase. A look at most of the referenced links in the article will be sufficient to prove verifiability and WP:RS about the facts in the lead section. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickYOk, I formatted the refs in accordance with the MOS. Now working on formatting in compliance w/ citeweb,book,etc....Will do presently hmm, on second thought I agree with above....the only policy I can find says that the article should be uniform--which it is. :) Lazulilasher (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC) modified Lazulilasher (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickYDates are now in a uniform format throughout the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a pass, refererences need to be before commas not after (I can see an example of this in the lead; for instance it should be ,[16] not [16],). Also the refs should be in correct order, e.g. it should go [3][17] not [17][3] when viewing the article. D.M.N. (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY Now done. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! D.M.N. (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edinburgh_Place_Ferry_Pier&oldid=1196420517"