Talk:Cheok Hong Cheong

Did you know nomination

The following 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 SL93 (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Australian missionary Cheok Hong Cheong sold bananas for ten years?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nahe wollt der Herr uns sein

Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Self-nominated at 20:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

• • Verified that the article is long enough, that there are no plagiarism concerns through the Copyvios tool and spotchecking, and that the hook is sourced in the article. Cunard (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Great hook and nice work on the article! Cunard (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
      • @Cunard and Kingoflettuce: I do hate to be the party pooper, but we not worried that this hook reads as if he sold bananas while a missionary—which would be untrue? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Does "... that President Reagan worked in Hollywood for eight years?" suggest that Reagan acted in movies while POTUS?? Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
          • No, because everyone understands that being the leader of the free world doesn't usually necessitate a side job. It is very possible that this random missionary who you are introducing to your audience—likely for the first time—could have had two things going on in their life at once, and it's not an unreasonable inference to guess that there might have been overlap between these two things. Some at DYK might be expecting the unexpected; they might click looking for a reason why Cheong might have sold bananas at the same time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
            • Indeed, they will click and realise they inferred wrongly. Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cheok Hong Cheong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I'ma editor2022 (talk · contribs) 21:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello🙋‍♂️! I'll be reviewing this article to see if it complies with tthe GA criteria. The process of reviewing the article may take several days (although unlikely). Remember when replying or commenting pls @ or ping me , as I probably won't be checking every hour. Or, alternatively, you can always chat on my talk page.

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Issues:

• "His father, Cheong Peng-nam, arrived in Victoria in 1854" needs to be changed to "His father, Cheong Peng-nam, arrived in Victoria, Australia in 1854" for clarification purposes since the country Australia has not been previously referred to.

@I'ma editor2022: Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Cheong was born...His father, Cheong Peng-nam...Cheong ^{[who? Which one?]} had two sisters" needs to be revised for clarification.

Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• " He was survived by six of his children." This needs clarification. Maybe rephrase it to "His lineage was carried by six of his children" ? However the article states he had 7 children so that statement definitely needs clarification.

Indeed he had 7 children and was survived by 6 children (he was predeceased by one)--but I am synthesising two sources and the fact doesn't seem so significant on second thought, so I've removed that line altogether, if that's alright. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: That's alright, and thank you for addresing it. :) —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 04:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure why this [[1]] has so much repititive citations, that needs to be decluttered. Or why this sentence has 3 inline citations in just one sentence. Although not necessary for GA status, you may want to look at WP:CITEKILL and in this case, WP:REPCITE, for future references:).

A) I thought it'd show exactly which bit of the sentence is backed up by which specific part of a specific source. Have lumped both at the end of the sentence instead. B) Similar reasoning, although in this case no pages are repeated. I always thought it was better to directly cite which specific parts were backed up by what. Since you say it's not necessary I have left that as it is. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

And respectfully, I think WP:INTEGRITY applies here ("nor does it apply when multiple sources support different parts of a paragraph or passage.") I must admit I never looked it up until today, just intuitively thought that had to be the case. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you have a point. They are relatively minor, and not necessary issues. I never actually read WP:INTEGRITY before, so thank you for referencing it. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 04:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Comply with all.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Complies with all.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All citations come from reliable sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Almost all sentences, however this sentence needs an inline citation

Ironically, REPCITE is relevant HERE, since Lake 2013, p.49 supports both sentences so there's no need to inline cite it twice... Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh thank you for correcting me! I don't really have acess to the source so it's good to know that. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 04:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   None found

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Addresses the main aspects of the subject, although a short article

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Article is short and concise.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Article gives due weight to subject

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Article is stable and hasn't been the victim of vandalism (VOV) for atleast the last month, nor has any edit warring occured

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Yes

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Has relevant captioning.

>#Overall:

1. Pass or Fail:

   Please address the following issues above, and remember when commenting please ping me :)

"@I'ma editor2022: hey, really appreciate the speedy review, I think the changes needed to be made were relatively minor. Hope all's good now! :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: You're welcome! I'll pass this since changes met were adequate _{(hey that ryhmes!))}. —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 04:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed