Talk:Flag of Hong Kong (1871–1997)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flag of Hong Kong (1959–1997)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) 14:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope to review this article soon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Seems all good here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Seems all good here too.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	I fixed up some links for the books to Google Books and hyperlinked the publishers from them too. Furthermore I added 4 accessdates using Checklinks	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Removed a Daily Mail source where two other sources were already given.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The infobox appeared to be this at first, but I think WP:BLUE means that it doesn't matter.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Passed Earwig's Copyvio Detector.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Yep. This article address the history, creation, succession, post succession use of the flag.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article doesn't go into unnecessary detail that would only interest a vexillophile.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
All good here too.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Easy pass here. In fact it looks like this article has never had an edit war or content dispute.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All good here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All good here too.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A good article. You should be proud.

Discussion

Some rewriting may be able to reduce the article looking like it's source materials, as indicated by Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Flag of Hong Kong (1959–1997) → Flag of British Hong Kong – I believe that whilst this article is very much appreciated I don’t understand why this article is only exclusively about the 1959-1997 colonial flag of Hong Kong whilst there have been several versions of the flag prior to the adoption of the 1959 flag but don’t even get a mention on this article and I feel that there should be an inclusion for those former flags and also to include all the versions of the governors flags that used to be flown from Government House and in order to make the article more inclusive I request the title be changed to “Flag of British Hong Kong” so all the former colonial flags can potentially be accommodated and add the British into the title so there is no confusion with the present Flag of Hong Kong article. 2A02:C7F:5622:2000:B8E6:E0CB:D601:91E3 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as this article is about a particular flag, if the proposer thinks more coverage of other flags used in Hong Kong then perhaps Flags of Hong Kong might be appropriate for a new overview article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Wouldn't that essentially be a list article? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If done properly no reason why it couldnt be a reasonably overview of each of the flags used through the history, it would link to individual flag articles for more in depth coverage but could summarise and provide a chronology. This still supports having stand-alone articles for the more noteworthy flags like this one. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Support. Good idea! I don't mind it changing the scope a bit because all these flags are not individually notable imo. It is a great WP:NATURALDIS to boot! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as this article is only talking about one of the few flags used during the British colonial period. I would suggest a better idea would be to merge this article with the broader article on the flag of Hong Kong to list the historical progression of the various flags used in HK. A quick look at some other places (India, Australia, South Africa, Russia) shows that this seems to be the done thing on WP. But if you want to have a separate article about this flag specifically, then I would say the proposed title is misleading. Kdm852 (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose As the creator of this article, the reason I chose the current title was because British Hong Kong used several flags and this was the one that was used during that period up until the Handover but has since been resurrected as a protest flag. I did it because I felt this was the most accurate way of describing it rather than misleading people into thinking it was used since establishment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mainland or not

An IP (@89.248.248.2:) has stated we should use "mainland china" opposed to China in the article. My personal opinion is that there is no need as most know it refers to PR China and is also slightly misleading as Hong Kong territory isn't an island. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User:The C of E is on steadfast mission to deny basic facts of geography, that Hong Kong is China and China is Hong Kong. China is the state Hong Kong is the region. As of now the article acts like Hong Kong is some other place, not a part of China. The crux of The C of E's denial of geography is his colonial wet dream that Hong Kong be return to its "rightful owners" aka the British invaders (see his talk page boxes). As such the article should incorporate geography into this article and stop treating them as different places. All mentions of 'China' should be changed to 'Mainland China' as 89.248.248.2 (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)is the established terminology.89.248.248.2 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I trust you are aware that WP:ATTP arguments don't hold much weight? It appears to me that Mainland China is a potentially loaded term because it claims all is PRC when it isn't. Hong Kong is to China as Gibraltar is to the UK. Under the jurisdiction of but with a separate legal and political system and is treated separately under law. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Utterly false. Please read the Basic Law of Hong Kong and One Country Two Systems article. Hong Kong is a Special administrative region of China, and is part of the PRC, just as Scotland is part of the UK. Your proud ignorance of the territorial boundaries of the People's Republic of China is in direct contradiction with reliable sources. If you say Hong Kong is not in the PRC then source it, good luck! 89.248.248.2 (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Again with the argumentum ad hominum? (and attempting to hide it too?). Please note, I am not saying HK isn't a SAR of the PRC, I am saying that use of "mainland china" is inaccurate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice red herring, now would you care to respond to the fact that Hong Kong is located within' the PRC. You have failed to provide evidence it is essentially a Chinese version of British Overseas Territories, in fact you have not even attempted to do so. As for "Mainland China" being misleading that is the established terminology and its better to be supposedly misleading then to deny basic facts of geography which you seem to be on a hell-bent mission to do.89.248.248.2 (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not being entirely familiar with this spat, it's difficult to be completely clear what is being argued over. My 2 cents are that, as the article refers to a flag used officially before Hong Kong was handed to China, the use of the term "China" is the proper usage for events pre-1997. For usage after the handover, then it would be more common to say "mainland China" largely for consistency. Although simply saying "China" to refer to the Mainland is common in HK, it may not be clear to non-HK readers. I suggest delineating along these lines for the sake of clarity. Kdm852 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me.89.248.248.2 (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kdm852: I will just note that the IP has just been blocked for vandalising other pages by inserting things like this. Which suggests that this is more than just a passing concern and more indicative of a series of WP:POVPUSHing from the IP. As such, I do not believe it is a good idea especially since he has provided no policy based reason for using "mainland china". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)