Talk:Hong Kong/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look over the next few days and then give my initial impression. SilkTork *^YES! 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments:
- Lead needs expanding per WP:Lead. The lead needs to be a mini-article. Many readers do not get further than the lead.
- Good looking article - nicely presented and laid out.
- Prose is clear and easy to follow, conveying sometimes quite dense material with clarity.
- Images tend to be of excellent quality. There are a good range of useful images, both modern and contemporary with past events. One image File:Avenue of Stars2.jpg has a copyright query, the others are fine. I'd like an explanation of the issue regarding File:Avenue of Stars2.jpg, or for that image to be removed or replaced. While the captions are clear and useful, at times they are longer than suggested in Wikipedia:Captions - "Japanese troops enter Hong Kong...", "Situated at the heart of the city, St. John's Cathedral...", "2 International Finance Centre...". On the other hand "The Court of Final Appeal in Central" is perhaps not detailed enough.
  - Done Shorten and lengthen on recommended captions per suggestion. Replaced File:Avenue of Stars2.jpg with File:Avenue of Stars Statue.jpg. Tavatar (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been some reverts recently, but these are mostly minor incidents to be expected in a major topic. The article is not currently protected, and protection is possibly not needed as the vandalism is being managed. I will, however, consider protecting it on request
- There is the sort of detail a general reader would expect and want from such an article, and it is nicely balanced, with sub-pages for detail.
- The information is presented in a neutral and appropriate manner - noting the pollution problem as well as highlighting the financial reputation.
- This is a helpful and informative article. Quite impressive.
- I will now look into the sourcing. SilkTork *^YES! 11:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears well sourced. All statements I checked went to a reliable source which clearly supported the statement.

Address the minor image queries, and expand the lead and this will pass as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 17:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. When you have finished the lead, let me know. I'll put the review on hold for seven days to allow time for the lead to be expanded. If you manage it before then or have any questions, please ping my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on the Lead to bring it up to guidelines in WP:Lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." This is taking some time as the topic is quite a large one, and I don't really know it. I think I'm almost there, though as I've been reading through the article carefully to look at what to summarise in the lead, I've been noticing stuff that I missed in my initial sweep....

Sources[edit]

There are large chunks of the article which are not cited. The bulk of the first paragraph of History is uncited - I'd like some support for facts in there like "salt production site" and "military port of strategic importance"; the whole of the "As textile and manufacturing industries grew..." paragraph is uncited; in Administrative districts the "The 18 districts can be split into three areas.." paragraph is uncited; in the Economy section the paragraph "The Government of Hong Kong plays a passive role..." is uncited; this "However, the population in Hong Kong continues to grow due to the influx of immigrants from mainland China, approximating 45,000 per year. Life expectancy in Hong Kong is 81.6 years as of 2006, the sixth highest in the world." and this "Signs displaying both Chinese and English are common throughout the territory. Since the 1997 handover, an increase in immigrants from mainland China and greater integration with the mainland economy have brought an increasing number of Mandarin speakers to Hong Kong." and this "Concerns over a lack of religious freedom after the 1997 handover have largely subsided, with Falun Gong adherents free to practice in Hong Kong; the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches each freely appointing its own bishops, unlike in mainland China." and this "Hong Kong's education system roughly follows the system in England, although at the higher education levels, both English and American systems exist. The medium of instruction is mainly spoken Cantonese, written Chinese and English, but Mandarin language education has been increasing." need citing; the bulk of the Culture section needs citing; and this "Hong Kong Island's steep, hilly terrain ..." in Transport. I don't know how I missed all that when I read through - but it certainly needs attention! SilkTork *^YES! 00:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned that there are statements unsourced that could be challenged. Such as "The Hong Kong Government does not need to pay the costs of the resident military forces"; and "Since the 1997 handover, an increase in immigrants from mainland China and greater integration with the mainland economy have brought an increasing number of Mandarin speakers to Hong Kong"; "The Government of Hong Kong plays a passive role in the financial industry", etc. Such statements should be sourced or removed. I note that someone has helpfully put cite tags in the Culture section. I will go through and do the same to the rest of the article, and then give another seven days to allow the cite tags to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 12:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On hold until 13 November. Ping me if done before then. SilkTork *^YES! 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work all round. I've finished off the last cites so this has now passed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]