Talk:Timeline of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (March–June 2019)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 07:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article - it's quite long, so I will post the full review here hopefully tomorrow! Kingsif (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Lead is satisfactory in terms of style, but too short.
• Mixes a to-the-point delivery with complex sentences, which makes the length of the passages manageable to read.
• Also as a list, it does not need to have the more complex styles of prose that good articles do, since there's little prose and it's not connected.
• In the 31 March part, perhaps reiterate the bill; rather than just say "the bill", have "the extradition bill" - the lead is a long way up (and currently so short it may be overlooked).
• No introduction of Chan Tong-kai before it's written like the reader should be familiar; recommend rephrasing.
• Some odd ways of phrasing certain things, though generally reads like HK English.
• However, also has sizable issues with grammar throughout.
• The sentence "Videos depicted the police firing tear gas on both sides of Lung Wui Road at around 4 pm as in a pincer movement near Citic Tower went viral on Hong Kong social media" starts of good, but after '4 pm' it is patent nonsense.
• The sentence "Activists have also targeted senior officers in the force who are British, questioning the legacy of colonial violence." isn't clear on what the activists have been doing - are they criticising British police, hunting them, are they asking them to change or take some action or what?
• Needs work - not awful, but certain areas of clean-up needed, would benefit from a copy edit

Coverage

• Should have a longer lead with more background.
• Has sufficient detail of all protest activities and continuing context
• Fail - needs better lead

Illustration

• Well illustrated
• All free images
• Good spread throughout article
• Widespread protests receive multiple photos, laid out in good galleries
• Nice templates
• Pass

Verifiability

• Some uncited statements that appear to be in sources, but the footnotes aren't at the end.
• OR discussion last week does not seem to have been resolved.
• Wide selection of reliable sources
• There is one cleanup tag on a source - the police Twitter. Though this tag asks for a non-primary source, since it is the police tweeting a report on the protest, I feel it falls closer to 'press release' than 'bias personal twitter update', and can stand.
• Also a few actual cn tags have made their way in and not been resolved.
• Fail - footnotes should be spread and OR needs to be resolved

Stability

• There were some massive edits in August, at 100s of 1000s of bytes. Some of these were to fix refs, but others seem to be significantly adding and taking away from the article.
• If this were a good article, would it remain like it is now, and not have chunks merged in and out to other 2019 Hong Kong protest articles as editors felt best? I feel this is an important question - changing the article may be best for the coverage, but since this article covers up to June (with the ends of June being merged into the article on only 27 August), and it's mid September with the protests showing no signs of stopping, I feel this is too polemic to be considered stable, and the article could carry a GA stamp even if it looks drastically different in a few months.
• As another note, there was also a talk page discussion about OR concerns that don't seem to have been resolved, last week.
• Fail

Neutrality

• Article starts with good neutral coverage of contentious topic and giving all sides, protestor counts, and opinions an equal voice.
• Part way through June there's the occasional emotive phrase, and they may be justified by attribution of response
• By the part on the UN response to the CITIC protest, the article can easily be seen to have a disapproving view of the HK leadership.
• Fail

Copyright

• Some copyvio here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
• Close paraphrasing here, here
• All images free and licensed correctly
• Fail That's a lot of copyvio.

Overall

• It's a nice article, but there are flagrant copyvios, a few issues with style and need of an expanded lead, and, my main concern, the lack of stability.

The topic of this article is not even three months out of ongoing territory, with its parent topic still an ever-changing ongoing situation with a tree of related articles. I'd recommend waiting until either the year or the protests are over, whenever the editing within and between the current series of HK protest articles will calm down (it is for this reason that I haven't nominated Juan Guaidó, e.g., for GA). Kingsif (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. Maybe waiting the editors calms down is the best choice.Mariogoods (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

After all, articles on current events are usually unstable. I think waiting until coverage of the event dies down to re-nominate this is for the better. ToThAc (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)