Talk:1 July police stabbing/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Initial review

There are many grammatical mistakes and extensive usage of passive voice so it's not clear who is being referenced, for example phrases like "according to one source" don't make it clear if it's a newspaper source, anonymous source referenced in a newspaper etc...

The lede includes excessive details about the student unions' vigil and is WP:UNDUE cherrypicking from all the different responses to the attack. Leaving it out altogether from the lede would be my recommendation.

While the specific three anniversaries mentioned seem plausible/accurate, the NYTimes and CNN sources used only verify the handover of Hong Kong to China anniversary, but not the enactment of security law or communist party anniversaries.

The reception section could be summarized/much shorter.

I was really surprised the Impact section didn't discuss the impact of the stabbing on broader Hong Kong society, and instead solely focused on impact of one politician's appearance, a foreign journalist and co-workers of Leung.

The excessive usage of images (15 images related to protests in one section alone) is not compliant with WP:GALLERY recommendations and is not very focused for me.

Image copyrights

I couldn't verify that the still File:Police stabbed in Causeway Bay East Point Road 20210701-1.png created from the WhiteShadowJournalist video [1] are the original video creators/owners of the video'd incident. I looked them up and couldn't find much information about them. Their video has less than 40,000 views which doesn't suggest to me that it's one of the original videos and it has not bee reviewed on Wikimedia Commons yet. Verifying this, finding another freely licensed photo and or using WP:NFCC fair use would be alternative remedies.
The photos used from Stand News are verified, although unfortunately the newspaper was shut down last week, so many of their facebook links don't work anymore. That's not a major concern for me.

In short, I will give a week for corrections to be made, but a lot of work needs to be done. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My belated thanks to user:Shushugah for the thorough GAN review. As an editor who worked extensively on this article, I would like to offer a few remarks to the esteemed Wikipedia admin team, as well as others.

From a sober own assessment, also taking into account the probably heightened demands due to the sensitive subject of the article involving a suicide, it would not have occurred to me to submit a GAN at the stage that the article was in. My own work on the article, at least over long stretches (before the aftermath of the HKU Student Union controversy), was primarily motivated by what I saw as serious problems in the article: one of the most glaring – eventually removed by myself – being the statement that the stabbing plus suicide had been a part of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests;[2] another being the inclusion of some wikilinks of dubious value [3]. The list could go on; see my edit summaries. I concede that I could have done better in grammar fixes and most probably, taken more care in avoiding them myself (English being my second language); but with the numerous Chinese-language references with which I was confronted, and which I had no easy time to read, this was a secondary concern. Of some note may also the username of the nominator; just voicing this is, I hope, not a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. While I appreciate that everyone should be able to submit a GAN, there is IMHO a potential for this freedom to be exploited to cripple other editors' enthusiasm for just helping to deliver an article that is "meeting the needs of most readers", a view that Wikipedia itself endorses as fully reasonable. Thank you for hearing me out.--CRau080 (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I am allowed to reply here. But would like to share my perspective. Before I came here, the introduction had minimised the police statement to a few short sentences while giving disportionate large amounts of coverage to the; "some Hong Kongers" who beautify, glorify, celebrate and idolise the terrorist actions.

I came here only for the article [Vitasoy] and later came across this article on police stabbing. And as someone who thinks it's wrong to kill someone you don't even know personally. I am shocked beyond disbelief when I read this article that I couldn't help but contribute. Just so we are on the same page, do we all agree that the terrorist is a terrorist and that nothing justifies what he did? If we agree that terrorism shouldn't be glorified or celebrated.

Why is the introduction like 70 percent overrepresenting the Hong Kongers voices that glorify the terrorist act? Why is the police statement given only a few short sentences? Is it okay to go minimise the police statement explaining why terrorism is not acceptable but give so many coverage to "some radical Hong Kongers" who argues that he is a hero for trying to murder police? I am sorry but Wikipedia must have some moral code where when it comes to what's obviously immoral terrorist acts. The worst thing this article can do is to mostly give priority to "some" voices that police officers deserve getting stabbed to death and honouring a cold blooded murderer. The article for moral reasons, should not risk going that direction and why I disagree it is a good article. Thanks. 49.186.209.37 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]