Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive5

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2018 [1].

Hong Kong[edit]

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the city of dim sum, the epitome of "East meets West", and the place that brought us Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee. I've put a lot of work into improving the quality of this article over the last several months, and I believe it's up to par with FA criteria. Much appreciated, -Horserice (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

It's great to see this important article developed to a high standard and at FAC. I'll work through the article, but due to its size, it might take me a few goes. I have the following comments, but as as over-arching comments, I have concerns about the quality and sufficiency of some of the sourcing and the internal links should be reviewed to remove over-linking.

  • The second para of the lead should briefly note the region's pre-British history given the extent of the coverage of this in the article
@Nick-D: How would you fit that into the current content? Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest adding a bit to the start of the second para of the lead Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and supported by its independent judiciary system" - I suspect that this now needs a qualifier
@Nick-D: Changed to "common law judiciary system" Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the judiciary is no longer seen as being totally independent of the government. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Britain resumed control of the colony shortly after the surrender of Japan, on 30 August 1945" - to be pedantic, this was actually shortly before the formal surrender of Japan on 2 September.
 Done Fixed that detail. Horserice (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The construction of the Shek Kip Mei Estate in 1953 marked the beginning of the public housing estate programme, which provided shelter for the less privileged and helped cope with the continuing influx of immigrants." - needs a reference
 Done Added government ref. Horserice (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the government began a series of reforms to improve the quality of infrastructure and public services through the 1970s." - perhaps say why: as I understand it, this was to stop the building unrest which was threatening British rule
  • There's a bit of over-linking. Chinese Civil War, Governor of Hong Kong, etc
  • I'd suggest noting why the continued British rule over Hong Kong was unviable by the 1980s (as I understand it, the New Territories were vital for water supply and other reasons, and China was making barely-veiled threats of launching a military attack if the British didn't leave soon)
@Nick-D: Everything that I've read about this perception seems like a "he said, she said" thing. Yes, it seems like the British had the impression that the Chinese would have really attacked if they didn't come to terms in 1984, but I have not found a Chinese source to corroborate the possible military strike.
As for the water stuff, I will try to find more sourcing. Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
History books, journal articles, etc, cover the issue of why Britain handed all of Hong Kong back. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I (having peer reviewed this just before the FAC) seem to recall having read, the original negotiation was over returning the New Territories. Deng told Thatcher that, global opprobrium notwithstanding, he could still very easily order a military action over the river and just take most of it back that way. Thatcher went and looked at Boundary Street and realized that if China did reclaim the New Territories by force, the remaining portion of the territory would be extremely hard to defend, so she came back to Deng and offered him the whole thing.

So, if that's true, it doesn't look like there was a direct military threat. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we really need a full paragraph on the Kowloon Walled City? It involves jumping back at the narrative, and seems more detailed than the rest of the history section.
@Nick-D: It's an interesting anomaly of the Second Convention of Peking, so I felt it warranted more exposition in that section. It definitely was a major point of contention in negotiations between the two parties at the time, but I definitely can see the relative non-importance in the context of this article. How would you suggest trimming it down? Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One or two sentences seems proportional Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Horserice (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised that the material on the history of the city from the 1980s onwards is sourced almost exclusively to newspaper reports and the like. There are a number of history books on this subject which should provide broader coverage.
@Nick-D: There wasn't much there before on the 1980s, but agreed, could probably find additional book sourcing. Don't currently have access to that material, but will try to find something good when I can. Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 1 July 1997, sovereignty over Hong Kong was officially transferred from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China, marking the end of 156 years of British colonial rule. As Britain's last major and most populous remaining colony, the handover effectively represented the end of the British Empire. Exactly at midnight, all government organisations with royal patronage simultaneously dropped the Royal prefix from their titles and any regalia with references to the Crown were replaced with insignia bearing the Bauhinia." - the reference given supports little of this: it's about the personal experiences of a police officer.
 Done Replaced cite with conference proceeding on HK flags/insignia. Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sole reference for the paragraph beginning with "Infrastructure post-handover has been rapidly developed" also doesn't support much of the content. It's also an opinion article, and so probably isn't a suitable reference for this kind of material.
  • The 'Legal system and judiciary' section should more clearly note how the Hong Kong legal system interacts with the main Chinese legal system, especially in light of recent events.
@Nick-D: There's more detail on some of the controversy surrounding that under 'Sociopolitical issues and human rights'. Is that not enough? Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Put it in the appropriate place. The article can be duplicative at times. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and both governments collaborate on a number of economic and bilateral agreements" - this is referenced to two examples of agreements, and so doesn't support the statement that there are a number of such agreements. A broader source is needed.
  • Couldn't find a broader source, but I added more references to said agreements. Horserice (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find a source that supports what the article is saying. I find it hard to believe that no one has ever written anything about the UK government and post-handover HK government striking a number of deals. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, did a bunch of digging and a sufficient article did not come up about this topic. If the agreements don't even come up as a topic of discussion in a parliamentary report, then I don't know where else to find something about it. Replaced this bit with stuff about BC cultural activity. Horserice (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The para starting with 'Hong Kong consists of three geographical regions' needs a reference
@Nick-D: I don't really know what would be a good reference for this. There's scattered mentions of this throughout government sites, like [2], [3], and [4]. Horserice (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The government dropped this proposal after fierce opposition" - when did this occur?
@Nick-D: One of the sources indicates that? I can find more sourcing on it if necessary. Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Updated with year and link to article about proposed bill. Horserice (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the colonial era, territorial defence was the responsibility of the British Forces Overseas Hong Kong, supplemented by local militia organized as the Royal Hong Kong Regiment" - the reference given for this (a transcript for a 1970 Legislative Council session) is inappropriate.
@Nick-D: May drop this sentence since it seems out of place with the rest of the content in that section. Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty relevant to me (this aspect of the handover involved some significant changes, with Hong Kongers being barred from the defence of their city, leading to an even more colonial-style military force being stationed there), and would be easy to reference. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Köppen–Geiger classification system, Hong Kong has a humid subtropical climate (Cwa), though it is situated 128 kilometres (80 mi) south of the Tropic of Cancer" - the source only covers the distance from the equator, and not the climate classification
  • There's a [not in citation given] tag dated to August 2017
 Done Updated. Horserice (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Architecture section could be broadened to note that pretty much all of the urban area (even the new towns and townships on the south coast of Hong Kong which in most places would be low rise) are dominated by densely packed tall buildings of similar appearance, even though they may not qualify as skyscapers. This element of the urban form is striking (especially for suburbanites like myself!) and fairly unusual.
  • There's some inconsistency in how page numbers are presented in references - please settle on one style.
  • Okay, will do this in one pass after addressing all other issues. Horserice (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Economy' section should discuss how China's development is putting Hong Kong's economic model under pressure and where its advantages lie - eg, as Chinese ports develop there's less need for transshipment and as the Chinese financial sector develops there's less need to go through Hong Kong. Conversely, Hong Kong's legal system still means that its an attractive place for companies doing business in China to locate their headquarters, as contracts can be enforced and corruption is rare.
  • " 26.6 million visitors contributed US$32.9 billion in international tourism receipts in 2016, making Hong Kong the 14th most popular destination for international tourists. It is also the most popular city for tourists, receiving over 70 per cent more visitors than its closest competitor, Macau" - reference lacks a page number
 Done Horserice (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The city is further consistently ranked as one of the most expensive cities for expatriates" - one of the references dates to 2009
  • Since the sentence says "consistently ranked", wouldn't it be good to leave that older reference in? If the other ref is good enough, then I can remove it. Horserice (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over 90% of daily journeys are made on public transport, the highest such percentage in the world" - the reference dates this figure to 2003, which seems rather elderly
 Done Updated reference. Horserice (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Launched in 1997 on the Mass Transit Railway, it is the second contactless smart card system in the world to be used and is a ubiquitous form of payment throughout the territory." - needs a reference
 Done Updated. Horserice (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Road traffic in the territory drives on the left, unlike that of mainland China. " - I'd suggest saying why
 Done Updated. Horserice (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single reference for this para also doesn't cover most of its content
  • Are maps sufficient references for that? Or do I have to find some written source? Horserice (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are now almost exclusively used; single-decker buses remain in use for routes with lower demand or roads with lower load capacity. Public light buses serve most parts of Hong Kong" - this is a bit confusing. The double deckers aren't really 'almost exclusively used': while they do seem to be the standard bus for the main routes (and can be found driving in places I would have thought impossible to fit them!), there are vast numbers of the light buses.
  • Rephrased it a bit to try to disambiguate that public light buses != single-decker buses. Horserice (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mandatory education has contributed to an adult literacy rate of 95.7%" - this is very low by the standards of other places as rich as Hong Kong (where literacy is usually virtually universal). Can you say why? Presumably this is due to the rapid pace of Hong Kong's development and the large influxes of migrants.
 Done Horserice (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Programme for International Student Assessment ranked Hong Kong's education system as the second best in the world." - the reference dates to 2006, and PISA is regularly conducted so much more recent figures are available. This characterisation of its results also isn't really accurate: it would be more accurate to say something like Hong Kong 15 year olds achieved the second highest results on the assessment, or to briefly note the aspect of the system which was found to be good (for instance, a small gap between the highest and lowest scores, etc) - sorry to be pedantic, but I worked with PISA in a previous job.
 Done I just omitted this line. Didn't really know what I'd use the updated stats to illustrate. Horserice (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Life expectancy in Hong Kong is 81.3 years for males and 87.3 years for females as of 2016, making it the highest in the world" - the source says it's the seventh highest.
 Done Horserice (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also unkeen on the description of Hong Kong's culture being largely referenced to recent newspaper stories. As I understand it, there's a large literature on this topic, including books and journal articles, so this may not fully reflect the views on the issue.
  • Reference 413 lacks a page number
  • "Hong Kong is a recognized global centre of trade" - this has been noted several times previously
  • The description of the film industry should note that it's now considered somewhat faded.
  • Most of the para starting with 'Magazine and newspaper publishers in Hong Kong' needs to be referenced
  • Overall, the article provides very solid coverage of the topic, and strikes a good balance when covering most topics. Given what a complex topic this is, it's impressive work. However, I'm concerned about the extent of issues with sourcing I noticed without focusing on this specifically (in regards to references not supporting material, and the over-use of news stories), and the amount of over-linking also needs to be addressed. I think it would be helpful if a specialist in referencing could look in on this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applied for WP:JSTOR access to try to address sourcing concerns, but since there's a waitlist, I'm not sure there's much I could do about diversifying sources in the short term. Will try to use books over newspapers where possible, but it seems I won't have good access to that for some time. Horserice (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources[edit]

  • Not a review at this stage. But the links in what at this point are refs 271 and 390 are both dead, and there may well be others – the external link checking tool is unreliable.
  • By my reckoning, around 60 books are cited, but it's a hard job finding them among the mass of citations. I would prefer to see the books listed separately, with short harvard citations; then it would be easier to assess the nature and extent of the in-depth sources, as opposed to the proliferation of newspaper and government sources.
  • It will be a massively time-consuming job to do a worthwhile review of the 436 references, and it makes me question, not for the first time, the wisdom of preparing articles that greatly exceed the maximum dimensions recommended in WP:SIZE. Apart from questions of readability, there's the problem of reviewability – who has the time? Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what do you suggest we do about that? Horserice (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On TV Tropes when we need to review an unreasonable amount of links, we review a random sample of N links. N beingeither 20 or the square root of the number of links, whichever is larger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are several problems among the 436, sampling just 20 is most unlikely to catch them all. You'd be lucky to net one. Perhaps you should ask the coordinators what they would accept as constituting a fair sample check of the sources. If you were to do as I've suggested and list the books separately, that would help – they could be checked out quite easily. But the real answer to your problem is to keep articles within the length guidelines specified in MoS – too late for that now, I suppose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was working off the assumption that even at FAC level checking every single claim against the source is not a realistic undertaking and that a spot check does work on a representative sample. Myself I do perform an "every claim against its source" check at GAN and DYK but that only on shorter articles, passing up longer articles. Anyhow, @FAC coordinators: . Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest a larger-than-typical sample here given the concerns I have with the sourcing, as noted above. Nick-D (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A relatively small sample would be fine for checking claims against the sources. Aside from that, we need to check that the links are all working (I found two, see above, that aren't), that they go to the intended site, and that each reference is properly formatted. These checks can't really be done satisfactorily by ordinary sampling – I really think it's for the coordinators to decide what's acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear: I am not saying that we need to check every citation against its source. That would be impractical, and never happens at FAC; we might sometimes require a sample spotcheck. But, we do need to look at the nature of each of the sources to judge their reliability; we need to be sure that the external links are all working (at the moment there are still the two dead links that I pointed out above); we also need to check that the formats are correct and consistent throughout. Listing the 60-odd books separately would help. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Alright, I did a pass at listing a lot of the sources separately. I think that should help you out. Horserice (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • March_of_the_Volunteers_instrumental.ogg: the current tag seems to apply only to "photographs and cinematographic works, and all works whose copyright holder is a juristic person"
  • But the next part of that line says that it also applies to "all works whose copyright holder is a juristic person". Horserice (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sung_Wong_Toi_before_1943.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with QRCDuddell_1900.jpg, 1945_liberation_of_Hong_Kong_at_Cenotaph.jpg
  • Updated sources for Sung_Wong_Toi_before_1943.jpg and QRCDuddell_1900.jpg. Not sure if that's enough? Library source doesn't indicate more than just that they were published by the Museum of History. I also replaced the Cenotaph image. Horserice (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ended up replacing all images except for Sung_Wong_Toi_before_1943.jpg, so I think this is mostly done. Horserice (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • HKSAR_passport_cover_(biometric).svg is missing a FUR
  • Daniel Case is working on retrieving a more appropriate image instead of the passports, so just noting that at least this picture will be a nonissue soon. Horserice (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Horserice and Nikkimaria: I have now added this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Horserice (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:HKU1912.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  •  Done Ended up replacing with a more recent image listed as an original work. Horserice (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- with no activity for about three weeks this review appears to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly; per FAC instructions it can be renominated after two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 21 April 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/archive5&oldid=837623575"