| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I really, really, really, really want to get it to GA. As it was on DYK yesterday, I thought I would get some comments. I don't think I have enough, but I don't know where to go to, WP:FEED or WP:PR. An anon said PR should be better, so I'm asking here. So, ahem, what should I do to the article to bring it to GA?
By the way, please rate the article on the talk page, because it doesn't have one yet... I hope it's C-class. Oh, I almost forgot. I need someone good at this area to copy-edit it. Wikinewsies probably already know how many grammatical mistakes and awkward constructions and imprecise vocabulary and (well) typos I make. Thanks, Kayau Voting IS evil 06:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - thnaks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to GAN.
- I agree that this needs a copyedit to clean up the prose - PR is more to identify issues that need to be fixed, but there are volunteer copyeditors listed at WP:PR/V at the bottom.
- Per WP:LEAD, words in the lead should not be both bolded and linked.
- I think the article would benefit from some brief background information on Hong Kong to provide context to the reader - if a brief history of the founding of Hong Kong and its early status as a British colony were included, for example, that woud make it clearer.
- I also think the Early development section would be easier to follow in chronological order - as it is now, the first paragraph is about the industry prior to the 1950s, then the next paragraph is about the 1850s
- The first sentence in Early developments says The manufacturing industry of Hong Kong was yet to be developed before the 1950s. which makes it sound as it there were no such industry before the 1950s, then the next six paragraphs are about the industry prior to the 1950s. perhaps "was poorly developed" would be better
- The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which impede its flow - try to combine these with others or perhaps expand them in almost all cases.
- Be consistent about phrasing - for example both From 1946 to 1948... and From 1952 – 1954... are used. Pick one and stick with it
- In Industrialisation, I would perhaps add years to the headers, so "Early (years)"
- Also avoid words like current or today - it is better to use things like "As of 2010" or "since YEAR" - things can get out of date quickly
- For the sources in Chinese, I would provide a translation of the title etc. (as this is the English Wikipedia) See St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao for an example of this. The article also needs to identify these sources as being in Chinese (I know it should be obvious)
- I am not sure what primary and secondary industires are in ...primary industry of Guangdong decreased from 70.7% to only 32.9%, while that of the secondary industry rose from 12.2% to 20.7%.
- Any chance for more images - photos of factories or manufacturing districts?
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)