Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hong Kong/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Marskell 13:31, 7 July 2008 [1].

Hong Kong

Review commentary

Notified: User:HongQiGong, User:Mcy jerry, User:Kelw, User:Instantnood, User:PZFUN (original FA nominator), User:154.20.71.14, User:Mintchocicecream‎, User:SchmuckyTheCat, User:UCLARodent, User:24.176.138.81, User:Olivier, User:Jiang, User:Alfeewusy, User:Leungli, User:Alanmak, User:Chrishomingtang, User:Winhunter, User:Luckyluke, User:Benjwong, User:Badagnani, WikiProject Hong Kong, WikiProject China, WikiProject Cities, Wikiproject Countries

This article achieved FA status in 2006 and as you can imagine has changed significantly since then. The following issues are identified:

Criterion 1c - many statements are unsourced and in two cases entire sections.
There is ongoing/stale discussion about the use of either a "country" or a "settlement" infobox, and furthermore whether the article should style itself on other city or country FAs, something with could affect criterion 1d, other than that it is generally quite neutral.
Criterion 1e - it has been the subject of edit warring (official languages) and move-vandalism.
Criterion 2a - the lead section is concise but could be longer as per WP:LEAD.
Criterion 2b - There has been some debate about sections, some seem poorly organised.
Criterion 2c - inline citations are used extensively in some sections but missed completely in others. Literary references are given but not cited.
Criterion 4 - article is too long and some sections do not keep to summary style.

Hopefully this article doesn't need too much work but the magnitude of the change since 2005 and the tightening of FA criteria since then justifies a review. --Joowwww (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the nominating instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page to notify significant editors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications to the top of this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that bit, done now. --Joowwww (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can work on all these criteria, but other than requesting article protection and semi-protection, ultimately we can't stop editors from edit-warring and vandalising an FA article (Criterion 1e). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism can't be stopped, but edit-warring can be an indication of problems that need resolving. The other matters can be addressed, as you say.

In regards to length, I would suggest trimming the longer paragraphs, such as the last in "Economy". John Smith's (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seriously messed up the page. I don't know how to fix it! Protodude1337 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), stability (1e), organization (2), and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI don't see huge problems here; needs a ce and a few more refs is all really. Can this be left open for a week or two. Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOTS of work needed: uncited hard data, unformatted citations, WP:LAYOUT issues, and if the article is cited and citations are cleaned up, then I'll list all the MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, diff since I looked at it two weeks ago. Sorry Ceoil, but nothing significant is happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Unfortunately, as SandyGeorgia has pointed out, the problems that were stated earlier still remain.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.