Jump to content

Talk:Knife attack on Kevin Lau

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Knife attack on Kevin Lau/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 06:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Review in progress. Freikorp (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Well-written. Improved the only two minor issues I noticed myself.
    As per the comments just left yesterday from my good article mentor regarding the other article I started reviewing a couple days before this one, I need to do a more thorough check for copyright violations and close paraphrasing. I should be able to do that by the end of the weekend. Freikorp (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    After a thorough analysis, I find no major issues. There are a couple exact matches of words that go into double digits. I'd prefer if they were reworded: [1][2][3]
    • 19 words: "in 1998 radio talk show host albert cheng was stabbed by a group of thugs while leaving his office"
    • 12: "said they were not aware of any evidence linking the attack to"
    Some minor rewording wouldn't hurt on these 3, but i'm not as concerned about them
    • 11: "president xi jinping former premier wen jiabao and several members of"
    • 10: "rammed the gate of his home with a stolen car"
    • 9: "a petition demanding an explanation for lau's removal and"
    Other than that we're good to go. Freikorp (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead: The first words of the article, Kevin Lau, should be bolded. See MOS:BOLDTITLE.
    Layout: No issues noted.
    Words to watch: One possible instance noted below.
    Fiction and lists: Not applicable.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Checklinks finds two dead links; these need to be update or replaced: [4] It says a third reference is suspicious but it appears to be working fine for me. Whilst I am personally a big fan of template's like cite web, your referencing style is clear and consistent, and I do not see any other issue here.
    • I do not usually citation templates; there is no obligation to use them. The "dead links" readout is caused by sites where the tool cannot directly access the content. The urls in question are subscription articles, and are not dead. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Sentences "The South China Morning Post noted that AM730, an outspoken tabloid free-sheet, suffered a concerted advertising boycott from mainland Chinese companies." and "Beijing's representative office frequently pressures the free media in Hong Kong to revise or remove coverage that it dislikes." need inline citations, due to their libellous (but almost certainly true) allegations. Consider whether the word "noted", used twice in this paragraph, is the most appropriate word to use here as per WP:CLAIM. Incidentally whilst we're talking about this paragraph, consider whether "soft pressure" is the most effective title. I can gather what is meant by the term, but it's hardly a common and perhaps not an encyclopaedic term. How about simply 'Press freedoms' or something similar?
    C. No original research:
    No original research found.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    The article covers all notable aspects of the incident, given the relatively short amount of time since the incident occurred.
    B. Focused:
    Not sure if this is the right place to bring this issue up, but it needs to be addressed nonetheless. The 'Arrests' section is too thin, but more importantly, it gives no further information than what is already in the lead. In fact, it is the exact same information that appears in the lead. You should be able to easily add a couple more sentences using the citation already provided.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Aside from minor points mentioned above, no obvious bias. Given the nature of the incident, it can hardly be considered strange that most of the reactions have condemned the attack and the suspected motivations for it.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No issues here, article only has a handful of edits not done by the creator/nominator.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Not applicable: No images.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    No images. This is not a fail in itself as often it cannot be helped, but the article would certainly be improved by a relevant image.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Freikorp (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knife attack on Kevin Lau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what

[edit]

While pro-establishment figures sought to be prudent concerning any link between the attack and press freedom

what is this even supposed to mean, holy shit. I mean ... what ... this is blatantly pro-censorship and completely hides the fact they're covering up links between themselves and the attacker. It should state, based on reliable sources, that they denied any links between themselves and the attack. Honestly, it should just be removed - it just pushes the idea that there's something about ignoring the clear motive behind a large planned knife attack.

Simple grammar correction

[edit]

Under "Reactions" I revised "...recently published stories to try and establish possible motives." to "...recently published stories to try to establish possible motives." --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that H Bruce Campbell, though just for future reference you don't really need to let people know about minor changes on talk pages. Have a great day. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knife_attack_on_Kevin_Lau&oldid=1210508728"