Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive6

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2018 [1].

Hong Kong edit

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second attempt, let's gooooo. This article is about the city of good food, neon signs, and urban concrete forests. I've done a further expansion on this article, using (hopefully) better references this time. Here's to getting this in before Establishment Day. -- Horserice (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brief comment Last para of #Etymology, first para of #Regional and administrative divisions, second para of #Architecture, and first para of #Rail have last sentence with no reference. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now only last para of #Education which has last sentence with no reference. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. Added more references. Let me know if you keep catching anymore. Horserice (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage edit

General source formatting:

  • You have several sources that are apparently uncited in the text, and so are producing harv reference errors. Print sources: Bromma (2008); Gaylord, Gittings, and Traver (2009); Lee, Chan, Pan, and So (2002); Rioni (2002); Stone (2008). Academic publications: Poon and Chau (2001); Sinn (1987).
  • Removed these except Gaylord, Gittings, and Traver (2009) and Poon & Chau (2001). Ended up using them again. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • I'll make a pass at this later. If you can find some lingering examples, let me know. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book-format works with no ISBN assigned should ideally have an OCLC number. Mostly, that applies to works before the introduction of the ISBN system, such as Davis (1841). But you might want to consider providing an OCLC number for Empson (1992), either in place of or in addition to the Amazon-specific ASIN.
  • Publication locations are optional, but are all-or-nothing. You include them for (eyeballing) around half the sources, so you'll need to adjust things one way or the other.
  • When running through all of the sources for the first time, I thought it'd be useful to include as much information as possible. Better to err on having too much rather than too little? Anyways, removed these. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS traditionally gives some flexibility about whether article (and chapter) titles are given in sentence case or title case, but you mix them. Personally, I prefer sentence case for article titles, but what really matters is being consistent one way or the other.
  • Hmm, is it not better to stick to how articles style the titles? Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For journal publications, the MOS generally suggests that publishers are unnecessary (in most cases); regardless, you provide them here for most, but not all, journals and should opt for a more consistent citation approach.
  • Same with publication locations, took these out. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specific sources:

  • I'm not entirely sure where the demarcation lies between normal "print" sources and "institutional reports". Is The Basic Law and Hong Kong - The 15th Anniversary of Reunification with the Motherland the former and not the latter? If you're going to treat this as a print source, it needs a publisher (and probably an OCLC).
  • I generally divided them into:
print - sources with an ISBN or otherwise had paper copies made
reports - published reports or summarizing pamphlets commissioned by the government/supranational orgs or data sources from an otherwise authoritative source (Akamai or HSBC would be examples)
Also added an OCLC for that source. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Empson source needs a publisher. I'm not 100% certain which version you consulted, as there are a couple, but I believe the publisher to be the Information Services Department.
  • Chan (1994) is a doctoral thesis. While there's a certain measure of acceptance for doctoral theses, especially from prestigious institutions, is it possible to reference this material to something that has at least undergone peer review? Without digging into the text, I'm not sure if it can support the same claims, but I'll note the thesis author co-authored a published journal article on the same concept the following year: Chan, Tak Wing; Lui, Tai Lok; Wong, Thomas W. P. (1995). "A comparative analysis of social mobility in Hong Kong". European Sociological Review. 11 (2): 135–155. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036353.
  • Will try to find Found an alternative source for this. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, Horrocks (1994) is also a doctoral thesis. I don't see any immediate evidence that it was ever subsequently published in an academic journal. By its own abstract, he reaches different conclusions about the event than the prevailing scholarship, and since the thesis does not appear to be widely cited, it is possible that this work does not represent mainstream view on the topic. Perhaps different sourcing would be more appropriate here?
  • Same as above, but may just rephrase and remove that bit. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lupant (1999) is missing some bibliographic information. In particular, the linked pdf is a scan from the Proceedings of the International Congress of Vexillology 18, and should probably be cited as such.

§Legislation and court judgements:

  • First, consider whether this should be judgment rather than judgement. In American English, the "no e" version is the only acceptable one; in British English, the situation is more complicated, but the "no e" version is at least as acceptable. I have no idea what the status of the word is in Hong Kong English.
  • My bad, that might have just been a typo on my part. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, this section is formatted as if it represented notes, rather than references. If it were actually serving as notes (for example, to provide the specific legislation mentioned in passing in the text) then this section should appear in a separate section before §References, per the MOS. However, not all of these notes are being used qua notes; rather, quite a few (most?) of them are the sole reference for statements in the article. And that's potentially problematic. Now, primary sources aren't forbidden as references, but should be used with caution and are generally discouraged when secondary sources exist. In my mind, that goes double for laws and legal claims; if the interpretation of legislation were straightforward, the legal profession could be quite a bit smaller, I would think. Especially in §Legal system and judiciary, I find the direct use of the law somewhat problematic. You have claims such as "Chinese national law does not generally apply in the region..." sourced directly to the Basic Law. And, indeed, at least based on the link provided, I'm not sure that point is particularly clear there. Surely there is a secondary source available which discusses this situation (and the others so cited)?
  • I did three things for this: 1) I redid legislation/case citations like normal references. 2) Basic Law/Joint Declaration citations now point to the specific articles I used. 3) I added secondary sources to replace some of the primary source citations. Direct legal references now are only used when what is expressed in the article is written basically verbatim in that piece of law. Example: "Public finances are handled independently of the national government and taxes levied in Hong Kong do not fund the central authority." references Article 3(8) of the Joint Declaration, which says "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will have independent finances. The Central People’s Government will not levy taxes on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." Horserice (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links are generally fine. I'm not sure whether the Curlie link is particularly necessary, but I have no fundamental objection. No examination of prose whatsoever. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Serial Number 54129: July 1st is when the handover occurred and the HKSAR was established. I meant that I wanted to get a review started before then and I did. Horserice (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serial Number 54129: LOL that’d be cool, but also totally not gonna happen. Kind of aiming for August 29, when the Treaty of Nanking was signed. But we’ll see how this review goes. Feel free to read through some of the article too ;) Horserice (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial comments from Nick-D edit

I don't think I'll read through this large article again, but would like to offer the following comments:

  • "The Ngong Ping Cable Car, West Kowloon Cultural District, multiple new railway lines, and additional cross-harbour tunnels were all completed in the first 20 years of territorial self-governance. Direct infrastructure links with mainland China are also being actively developed, with both the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge and Hong Kong section of the national high-speed railway currently under construction. Construction of the rail link generated a high level of controversy surrounding the demolition of key landmarks and displacement of residents along the planned route" - the reference given for all this material (a single newspaper story from 2015) does not support all this content. It obviously cannot reference projects currently under development, and doesn't cover the cross harbour tunnels or cable car. The article is also an op-ed, and so unlikely to be a reliable source.
  • "Political debates have centred themselves predominantly on issues surrounding electoral reform and Hong Kong's jurisdictional independence from the central government. Following the handover, democratic reform of the Legislative Council was immediately terminated and the government attempted to legislate sweeping national security legislation pursuant to Article 23 of the Basic Law. Coupled with years of economic hardships and discontent of Chief Executive Tung's pro-Beijing stance, over 500,000 people demonstrated against the government, which eventually led to Tung's resignation in 2005." - also not fully supported by the newspaper reference Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: No worries, thanks for taking a look at any of it again. I added sources to where you pointed out. Horserice (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • March_of_the_Volunteers_instrumental.ogg needs information on first publication of the melody per the first tag
  • File:Hong_Kong_in_Chinese_2.svg is not copyrightable
  • File:City_of_Victoria,_Hong_Kong.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • Replaced with File:THE PRAYA, HONG-KONG.jpg. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a bit more source info to the image. First published in the UK in 1873, when the copyright period under the Copyright Act 1842 lasted for author lifetime plus 7 years or 42 years from first publication, so image is PD. Horserice (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Battle_of_HK_01.jpg: is this image credited in the original publication?
  • Can't find original publication, replaced with File:CenotaphHK.jpg. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:PRC_Shenzhen_Luohu_entry_and_exit_stamps.png: under US law, scanning a 2D work does not result in a new copyright. Same with File:Hong_Kong_entry_passport_flag.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MarshalN20 edit

I am primarily concerned about the article's readability. It is too long, from my point of view. Wikipedia:Summary style guidelines could be applied to various sections, including the:

  • History
  • Government
  • Geography
  • Demographics
  • Infrastructure
  • Transport
  • Culture
  • I can work on cutting some of these down. I'd appreciate if you could point me to some articles you think are a good length. Reading other featured country articles (Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia), it isn't really obvious to me how long this article should be. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. Why is infrastructure a separate section? Would it not fit better within the economics or transport section?
  • Sure, I merged it with transport to form a single infrastructure section. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Why is media separate from the culture?
  • Since Hong Kong belongs to both WikiProject Cities and Countries, I drew from both of the guidelines (cities, countries) and added the Media section strictly to detail "local newspapers, TV, and radio stations". Felt more appropriate to discuss the content delivered through those media outlets in the Culture section. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Excessive number of images. I'm of the opinion that, per section, one image is preferable and two should be the most.
  • I'd appreciate other editors' opinions on this as well, because it would seem like almost every featured country and city article has too many images, following your thought on this. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. It remains unclear to me why the climate chart is necessary in these articles.
  • I agree with this. These charts seem to be in almost every city article, so I'm sure someone can point us to established consensus on it somewhere. I minimized the other climate chart so it takes up less space. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structure is important to me. I look forward to the improvements.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 03:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing some of the concerns, Horserice. Regarding the image number, I base my position on Wikipedia policies such as WP:IG and WP:NOTIMAGE. The cityscape section is at the forefront. Three images, practically about the same subject, with no body text. Other sections also have this problem. Articles should display few, unique images. That's what makes them special.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. Your comments on the Cityscape section are definitely fair. I cut that down to a single image and merged with the Architecture section, because I think showing the sheer number of buildings is the only way to effectively communicate the cramped architectural style. I will continue to work on cutting down some sections, most of it will probably come from the History, Government, and Transport sections. If you could highlight some parts of the Culture section you think are too verbose, that'd be helpful. Horserice (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MarshalN20: Alright, I cut huge chunks away. Take a look if you can. Horserice (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issues with summarizing and image number remains present. Several of the current featured country articles (such as Germany and Japan) are in need of serious revision. For example, as occurs with this article, image placement contradicts Manual of Style guidelines concerning text sandwiching. It's unclear to me how the image of Carrie Lam with Nicola Sturgeon (in Foreign Relations) reflects Hong Kong. The politician's portraits in the Government section are also of unclear necessity.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 12:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Interinter321: I'm cutting down the article in response to readability concerns in this FAC process and in the previous attempt. If you disagree with these changes, we can discuss it here. Looping in MarshalN20. Horserice (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Horserice. I can lend a hand in summarizing, if needed, but defer to the primary editor(s) expertise on the matter to make better decisions. Ideally, information should be transferred to specific articles rather than just deleted (that is, unless the information is already present in the specific articles). For example, the article on the Culture of Hong Kong should contain all of the information presented in the Hong Kong article's culture section, while the section itself should be an introductory summary that encourages the reader to read the primary Culture of Hong Kong article for further information.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 19:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good, let's coordinate on that. I'm positive that nothing I've taken out so far from the History, Demographics, and Government sections can't be found in the main articles. I'd definitely need help on checking the Economy and Culture sections though, and possibly Geography. The Infrastructure section should be pretty straightforward to cut down though. Horserice (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I noticed that another editor deleted it. I personally think that adding "of China" where you did is redundant in terms of sentence structure, because the lead sentence would be saying it twice. Regarding your example, I would point you to Guangzhou, which does not actually link China in the first paragraph. I think the article already makes it abundantly clear which country the city is part of. Horserice (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

With no activity for almost three weeks, and no consensus for promotion developing, this review seems to have stalled so I'm going to archive it. Going forward, I realise you've peer reviewed this but I believe you'd also be eligible for the FAC mentoring scheme, which might help get some traction on a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2018 (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/archive6&oldid=852878126"