Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:48, 23 October 2010 [1].

Hong Kong[edit]

Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 05:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the past FACR concerns have been addressed. In addition, other issues raised in the recent PR have all been addressed, and the PR is now closed. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 05:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FFA, has been on mainpage SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to work fine for me, perhaps it's a computer-specific problem? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working fine here too now—but a few hours ago it said the page no longer existed. Ucucha 01:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – File:Flag of Hong Kong 1959.svg, and the accompanying coat of arms, is sourced to some guy on a mailing list. That's not a good source for a detailed, "artistic" work that could be some guy's interpretation. We should only use illustrations from reliable sources (like File:Flag of Hong Kong.svg is downloadable from a government site). —Noisalt (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case you should use the actual image from that site, rather than the version currently uploaded (which is different). —Noisalt (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... I failed to see any difference between the uploaded the image and one on that site. I even downloaded the picture off that site, converted it to svg, and compared with the uploaded image. They look exactly the same. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 02:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could also just remove the image if it's such a big deal. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is the SVG has a much higher resolution. That means we're presenting some anonymous person's redrawn interpretation of the flag, rather than a verifiable version. But it's not important. Since there's a reliable source cited I'm fine with it. —Noisalt (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we have an independent ref to say that all these citizens' rights are actually respected. A primary source by a communist government is hardly persuasive; many communist countries have freedom of political association and speech in their constitutions, which are patently just lip service YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you referring to any specific statements that are made in the article? If so, can you quote it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the Beijing Olympic source, I made sure every reference from the ".cn" domain is supported by 2 or more sources. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 19:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the stuff cited to teh primary source on the Basic Law. Simply signing a pledge to allow this and that doesn't make it true, especially in this part of the world YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just went through the article to make sure all statements referenced by sources published from "Basic Law Promotion Steering Committee" are supported by a secondary source. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 06:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Mainly nitpicks:-

  • Ref 14: "BBC News" not a print source, should not be italicised
  • Ref 26: NetLibrary provides an electronic book service. It is not itself the book's publisher, which is Emerald Group Publishing
  • Ref 48: A publisher's name is a single entity, and you should not link a proportion of it.
  • Ref 52: Global Times should be italicised (print source)
  • Ref 91: See 14
  • Ref 97: See 52
  • Ref 116: "Brand Hong Kong" is a Government public relations programme, The fact cited to it is non-controversial and is covered by another citation. Do we really need Brand Hong Kong?
  • Ref 121: Globality Magazine is not your source; it is the source for your source - it looks like an abstract of the magazine article. Your source is GlobalAutoIndustry.com
  • Ref 150: See 14
  • Ref 151: See 52
  • Ref 175: Suggest spell out MTR (unfamiliar initials), It's linked, but why force people to use it? (cf. "Hong Kong Tramways")
  • Ref 179: see 14

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (note: I didn't check references because I'm assuming everything I noted at the peer review has been fixed)

  • "6,480 people per square kilometer" - for consistency, use UK spelling (and should this number be converted here?)
  • "special administrative regions (SAR)" - acronym should be plural
  • Last paragraph of lead needs editing for flow and clarity
  • "believed to have been used to pacify bad weather" - wording
  • "Modern Hong Kong is located in Nanhai commandery (modern Nanhai District) and near the capital city Pun Yue" - reword for clarity. Pun Yue is not a modern capital city.
  • "After his settlement" - wording is unclear. Did he found a settlement here? This is not explained.
  • Don't link the same terms multiple times, especially not in close proximity
  • "to open limited trading on a regular basis" - wording, and make it clear that this refers to trade with foreigners
  • "Hong Kong Island became occupied" - "was occupied"?
  • Why does "Nineteenth Century" include information on the 20th century? Also, don't capitalize "century" in the section heading
  • "In the 1950s, Hong Kong's rapid industrialisation was driven by exports: Textile and other manufacturing industries expanded as the population grew and labour costs remained low; living standards rose steadily" - split into 2 sentences
  • "main source of foreign investment to China" -> "in China"
  • "It also enjoyed high rates of growth..." - does "it" refer to Hong Kong or the service industry?
  • Post-war, is the nation controlling Hong Kong called the UK or Britain? Also, always use "the UK / United Kingdom"
  • "People's Republic of China (PRC)" is included in the lead, and thus does not need to be repeated later in the article
  • "Hong Kong was severely affected by the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome" - replace "severely" to avoid repetitious phrasing
  • Don't repeat information between Governance and Legal system
  • "It is headed by the President of the Legislative Council" - does "it" refer to the Legislative Council, the "other half", or the smaller electorate?
  • "Magistrates' Courts" or "magistrate's courts"?
  • ""district council model" blueprint" - redundant phrasing
  • "The document proposed the enlargement of the Election Committee" - you haven't told us what the Election Committee is
  • "Destined to be voted down once again by pan-democrats, a significant breakthrough came when the proposals were revised at the 11th hour, by making the new functional seats subject to direct election – the Democratic Party then broke ranks with the other pan-democrats and voted in favour of this first change in the annexes of the Basic Law since the handover" - not clear whether this change was actually successfully made or not
  • "to be elected by elected" - repetitive
  • British colony or Colony?
  • "territory" under Military is erroneously pipelinked to British overseas territories. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hong Kong indeed was a British overseas territority. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, technically not. It was a dependent territory (as is stated in the article), but the British overseas territories did not come into existence until after Hong Kong was "repatriated". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think everything is fixed now... Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 06:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your quick work! I'm still not entirely pleased with the last paragraph of the lead, although it has been improved. However, "believed as a form of weather worship" is actually poorer wording than the original. Terms are still linked multiple times and close together. I appreciate that you've specified what had high rates of growth, but the sentence now seems to conflict with the preceding sentence. The sentence about the pan-democrats is now clearer in meaning, but needs rewording for grammar and flow. "Elected" phrase is less repetitious, but should use "voted for by" or "voted in by". Anything not complained about here should be assumed to be fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did some copy-editing on the places you pointed out. I hope they sound better now. As for linking, I tried improve this area by removed duplicate links within the same section and direct related links in area I see a "cluster of blues". I also tried to stick with the one unique link per section rule, so duplicate links in different sections were left alone. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 00:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The History section seems to incur in WP:RECENTISM because there's much more detail on Hong Kong's history after 1997 than prior to that date. For instance, is there any reason to mention the 2005 and 2007 elections or the East Asian Games? They don't seem particularly important. In general, I think the History section could use some summarizing with details going into the relevant subarticles. --Victor12 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have to respectfully disagree with your assessment here. The sub-sectional division in the History section is based on distinct periods in Hong Kong history, and 1997 represented the start of the current period, marked by the city's return to Chinese rule. The 2005 and 2007 elections were the only two elections for Chief Executive of Hong Kong so far, and the East Asian Games was the largest international sporting event that Hong Kong has ever held. So these are important details. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would agree with what Victor12 says above. I would also point out that the pre-colonial history section seems to be grossly disproprtionate in size to its importance. Most of the material in that section applies to the South China region generally where Hong Kong happened to be located. But there seems to be very little of note which happened in the territory of Hong Kong prior to 1841 that would warrant such a large section. I read quite a way through that section before I came to the first bit which actually concerned the actual territory upon which Hong Kong would later come to be situated. That bit was about a school being opened. Hardly an incident of note. David Tombe (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm not sure what your intention is here, but I'm guessing you want to continue the dispute started in the talk page three days ago or seek WP:3O here? I don't agree with your grossly disproportionate description of the History section. If you take a look at the article now, the Hong Kong#Pre-colonial and Hong Kong#British colonial era sections are about equal in size. I understand you have an agenda to promote Weihaiwei using Hong Kong's Lead/History section (especially after seeing your recent contributions there). Major contributors of the article had already came to consensus in the talk page. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 03:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tavatar, I don't have an agenda at all. The Weihaiwei thing was purely a side issue. I inserted the bit about Weihaiwei as a good faith edit to improve the article. I was surprised to see it removed with no satisfactory reason given. The prolonged discussion which followed on the talk page was because of your sheer determination to justify your actions. It was important to let you know that people can see right through such empty arguments. As a result, I came to the conclusion that there is a group who have an agenda to play down matters relating to Hong Kong's colonial period, and to beef up the pre-colonial period and the post-colonial period. The Weihaiwei issue is merely symptomatic of this agenda. The group clearly had no desire to draw attention to the existence of another British colony further up the China coast. David Tombe (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media - It is not clear why the anthem is in the public domain, this metadata needs added to the file page. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the media if it's going to be an issue. I thought it would be ok because other FAs like India has done similar thing. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine it has a similar status to the flag, it just needs to be clarified on the page Fasach Nua (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the template "English-speaking world" used in this article is bizarre, dividing the English speaking world into "Regions where English is an official language and spoken by a significant population" and "Regions where English is an official language but not as widely spoken" screams lack of quantification Fasach Nua (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where this "English-speaking world" template on the article? Or are you referring to the category? ... maybe you are referring to another article? Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ta-Va-Tar, it's at the bottom of the article, under "Language" - you have to click "Show" to see it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been removed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hong_Kong/archive4&oldid=1086103415"