This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wan Chai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Wan Chai was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Wan Chai should be different from Wan Chai district, which also includes Causeway Bay. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The population figure (170,000) is for the (broader) district, not for Wan Chai alone (not sure about the area figure). — Insta ntnood 18:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
The centre of Wan Chai in the post-war period was at Tonnochy Road, while the present-day centre is more like to be around the MTR station. — Insta ntnood 18:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
This part will be deleted. It should belong to the Peak. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's a documentary about Wan Chai on ATV Asia...i've recorded it, and surely this would help much with this entry :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann
Wow. You guys are legends! I did not expect having such an indepth article on Wanchai here. The detail is amazing. You guys (and you all know who you are) are legends! novacatz 03:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi to all contributors to this article. This article is exceptional in the amount of informtion and images (the coastline one is amazing!) it contains. However, I am going to fail it's nomination. The style is at places unencyclopedic, there are rather many occurences of "many people say" without attribution, and it is a bit long and a bit of a mess.
This is on its way to a Featured Article, if you ask me, but you should:
I feel rather bad about failing your nomination, but I just don't think it's quite there yet. You should put some effort into this piece and aim for FA status, if you ask me. Thank you for making this article! --
Mstroeck 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of the information are moved to Urban Renewal Authority as it is more related to this article. Shrimp wong 03:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know the reclamation scheme name? If it is the Praya Reclamation Scheme then the year is likely off. Benjwong 07:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the "need expansion" area should not be a section at all. I am more than welcome to move the sentence to the intro and let it be. I think you are looking for something bigger like a political affiliation with some representatives. I am not sure the small area of Wan Chai has any special administrative policies compared to other districts. Benjwong 13:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the two sentences about the churches. Most of the religious section was not written by me. I have done some research, and it is difficult to say whether a church is for any particular group. So is either we mention it very very anonymously or we delete it. Either way is fine cause they are currently just red links with no articles. Benjwong 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
About the constituencies info, after doing some looking around, I am not sure there is a select group that watches over Wan Chai. Going one step up, anyone that manages Wan Chai district probably belong in the Wan Chai district article instead. I'll throw a question out at wikiproject HK to see if anyone can assist. Benjwong 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that Wan Chai district is the one with exact boundaries worth putting up like this, but that is a separate article. I have emailed the towns people once, they suggested electorial lines can change yearly. I have a lot of maps, none of them draw an exact boundary of where Wan Chai starts or ends. I am going to delete the 3 constituencies statement because that can be misleading especially with the half constituency. You raised a good point. For simplicity purpose, we should only say 11 constituencies are part of Wan Chai district, and mention no more. I am not from Wan Chai. Just happen to be improving the quality of another article. Benjwong 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion regarding what are the constituency areas of Wan Chai District. I'm not sure Wan Chai as a whole is a constituency. Take a look at this - [2] - I think Wan Chai may consist of several constituency areas. Although personally I'm not sure out of those areas, which is officially considered part of Wan Chai. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The article contains a wealth of information, and is reasonably well-written, though I made a few minor spelling/grammatical changes. It's mostly well-sourced, though there are a couple of gaps. The 'administration' section is very short, and unsourced. This section more information on Wan Chai District, who represents it on the city council, how does it fit into city politics, etc? 'community life', 'buildings and construction', and 'transportation', are largely short of references. The government's urban renewal projects should be sourced as well.
Consider moving the education section into it's own main section, not under 'community life'. It also seems incomplete - it largely only talks about one school, and the teacher Mo Dunmei. It seems like if there are "several renowned schools" in the district, more should be included in this section. Are the any institutions of higher education in the district?
The following line in the 'southorn activities" section seems blatantly obvious: "Some people dress very casually when taking part in these pastimes, perhaps a T-shirt, shorts and flip-flops that borderline public pajamas. People call this kind of outfit the "neighbour look"." Really? I never would've guessed what people wear when they play sports! OMG! Did Ric Romero write this section? I don't think this is necessary here,...
The images are overall very good, although I am uncertain of the point of the two images (Fleming Road and Tai Yau Arcade) near the top of the article? They don't seem to be accomplishing anything there. Why not add those to the gallery, which only currently contains two images?
I don't understand all those numbers in the 'buses' section under 'transportation' (e.g. NWFB: 2, 2A, 2X, 8, 8P, 15, 18, 18P, 19, 23, 23A, 23B, 25, 26, 38, 42, 63, 66, 81, 720, M722)? Are those bus stops? It doesn't seem very encyclopedic; the article should cover a description of the services, and some details on how they operate and such, written as prose. Details like specific bus stops and routes are unnecessary, as you can find those by reading the bus company's own brochures. Same goes for the numbers in the 'minibus' section.
There's still some rather flowerly language and weasel words in the article. These should be removed. A couple of examples (though probably not a complete list) include:
Hope this helps improve the article. I will place this on hold at WP:GAC for 5 days (until September 7, 2007), and revisit it again. Feel free to contact me with any questions or clarifications. Cheers! Dr. Cash 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have cleaned up just about all the weasel words and moved the education section over to the history. The two remaining issues are the administration and bus routes.
Administration
Bus routes
The article is looking much better. Though, there's still a few issues here and there. I would suggest taking a look at the Manhattan article, which is probably similar to Wan Chai in that it is also a part of a city (a borough), and not a city unto itself. Manhattan is also a currently listed good article. East End of London would also be a good article to look at, and it's also on the GA list as well. One thing to notice specifically about these articles, is the organization and the prose - notice that the sections generally do not use bulleted lists, and are mainly well-organized and constructed paragraphs. Dr. Cash 18:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Bus route info are not useful to readers outside of HK. I completely understand and agree on that. I am just trying to figure out how to draw the line and suggest "we can't have any more bus routes because we are shooting for high quality articles." The local citizens feel this is an integral part of their lifestyle. Afterall HK is 90% public transportation. Bus route info appears on a number of HK articles actually. So how we treat this one can also affect future nominees. If someone told me this would end up being the most questionable part for going GA, I would have never guessed. Benjwong 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
We should be careful with the level of details that are offered as far as something like bus routes and MTR routes are concerned. They should be mentioned, but not at a very fine grain level of information, because that would be a violation of either WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#GUIDE. In essence, the article should not be written in a way that readers come here specifically to look for directions on how to get to and from Wan Chai. That's not the purpose of WP. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The article has been failed at WP:GAC as the on hold time has elapsed without issues being resolved. Please feel free to renominate it once the issues are resolved. The article is pretty close; the introduction & history section look good. Reference citations are still severely lacking in the buildings and community life sections. The organization of the transportation section is also sub-par; for the most part, it lacks good, readable prose (although the main roads and tunnels subsection appears reasonably good, the rest is just a collection of very trivial and hardly notable cruft. I also don't see why the 'external links' section has a second section after it called 'bibliography', which only contains external links anyway? This seems very redundant, and makes the article's organization look quite poor. All external links should go in the section entitled 'external links', and nowhere else; the section should be also listed at the end of the article as well.
Please feel free to renominate the article once you've addressed the issues (though I can't keep this indefinitely on hold while you debate the matter amongst yourselves).
Hope this helps improve the article! Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Central a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the line (even though it is referenced):
'Modernising' is an odd term to use - what is modern in 1840? Moreover, the source I quote, a Chinese University historian, paints a very different picture, of lowly paid outcasts from bustling Central, and part of the area as a red-light district. So if anyone can reconcile this info, please do so, or discuss here. Earthlyreason ( talk) 09:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, can someone (the author,?) clarify the line:
Were these aerial bombardments? Certainly not after the original invasion. Or bombings? - also unlikely under rigid Japanese control. Earthlyreason ( talk) 09:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
http://hk-wanchai.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.83.178 ( talk) 07:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Another useful source here SCMP article, June 2014. Onanoff ( talk) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wan Chai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Wan Chai was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wan Chai should be different from Wan Chai district, which also includes Causeway Bay. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The population figure (170,000) is for the (broader) district, not for Wan Chai alone (not sure about the area figure). — Insta ntnood 18:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
The centre of Wan Chai in the post-war period was at Tonnochy Road, while the present-day centre is more like to be around the MTR station. — Insta ntnood 18:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
This part will be deleted. It should belong to the Peak. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's a documentary about Wan Chai on ATV Asia...i've recorded it, and surely this would help much with this entry :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann
Wow. You guys are legends! I did not expect having such an indepth article on Wanchai here. The detail is amazing. You guys (and you all know who you are) are legends! novacatz 03:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi to all contributors to this article. This article is exceptional in the amount of informtion and images (the coastline one is amazing!) it contains. However, I am going to fail it's nomination. The style is at places unencyclopedic, there are rather many occurences of "many people say" without attribution, and it is a bit long and a bit of a mess.
This is on its way to a Featured Article, if you ask me, but you should:
I feel rather bad about failing your nomination, but I just don't think it's quite there yet. You should put some effort into this piece and aim for FA status, if you ask me. Thank you for making this article! --
Mstroeck 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of the information are moved to Urban Renewal Authority as it is more related to this article. Shrimp wong 03:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know the reclamation scheme name? If it is the Praya Reclamation Scheme then the year is likely off. Benjwong 07:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the "need expansion" area should not be a section at all. I am more than welcome to move the sentence to the intro and let it be. I think you are looking for something bigger like a political affiliation with some representatives. I am not sure the small area of Wan Chai has any special administrative policies compared to other districts. Benjwong 13:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the two sentences about the churches. Most of the religious section was not written by me. I have done some research, and it is difficult to say whether a church is for any particular group. So is either we mention it very very anonymously or we delete it. Either way is fine cause they are currently just red links with no articles. Benjwong 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
About the constituencies info, after doing some looking around, I am not sure there is a select group that watches over Wan Chai. Going one step up, anyone that manages Wan Chai district probably belong in the Wan Chai district article instead. I'll throw a question out at wikiproject HK to see if anyone can assist. Benjwong 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that Wan Chai district is the one with exact boundaries worth putting up like this, but that is a separate article. I have emailed the towns people once, they suggested electorial lines can change yearly. I have a lot of maps, none of them draw an exact boundary of where Wan Chai starts or ends. I am going to delete the 3 constituencies statement because that can be misleading especially with the half constituency. You raised a good point. For simplicity purpose, we should only say 11 constituencies are part of Wan Chai district, and mention no more. I am not from Wan Chai. Just happen to be improving the quality of another article. Benjwong 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion regarding what are the constituency areas of Wan Chai District. I'm not sure Wan Chai as a whole is a constituency. Take a look at this - [2] - I think Wan Chai may consist of several constituency areas. Although personally I'm not sure out of those areas, which is officially considered part of Wan Chai. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The article contains a wealth of information, and is reasonably well-written, though I made a few minor spelling/grammatical changes. It's mostly well-sourced, though there are a couple of gaps. The 'administration' section is very short, and unsourced. This section more information on Wan Chai District, who represents it on the city council, how does it fit into city politics, etc? 'community life', 'buildings and construction', and 'transportation', are largely short of references. The government's urban renewal projects should be sourced as well.
Consider moving the education section into it's own main section, not under 'community life'. It also seems incomplete - it largely only talks about one school, and the teacher Mo Dunmei. It seems like if there are "several renowned schools" in the district, more should be included in this section. Are the any institutions of higher education in the district?
The following line in the 'southorn activities" section seems blatantly obvious: "Some people dress very casually when taking part in these pastimes, perhaps a T-shirt, shorts and flip-flops that borderline public pajamas. People call this kind of outfit the "neighbour look"." Really? I never would've guessed what people wear when they play sports! OMG! Did Ric Romero write this section? I don't think this is necessary here,...
The images are overall very good, although I am uncertain of the point of the two images (Fleming Road and Tai Yau Arcade) near the top of the article? They don't seem to be accomplishing anything there. Why not add those to the gallery, which only currently contains two images?
I don't understand all those numbers in the 'buses' section under 'transportation' (e.g. NWFB: 2, 2A, 2X, 8, 8P, 15, 18, 18P, 19, 23, 23A, 23B, 25, 26, 38, 42, 63, 66, 81, 720, M722)? Are those bus stops? It doesn't seem very encyclopedic; the article should cover a description of the services, and some details on how they operate and such, written as prose. Details like specific bus stops and routes are unnecessary, as you can find those by reading the bus company's own brochures. Same goes for the numbers in the 'minibus' section.
There's still some rather flowerly language and weasel words in the article. These should be removed. A couple of examples (though probably not a complete list) include:
Hope this helps improve the article. I will place this on hold at WP:GAC for 5 days (until September 7, 2007), and revisit it again. Feel free to contact me with any questions or clarifications. Cheers! Dr. Cash 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have cleaned up just about all the weasel words and moved the education section over to the history. The two remaining issues are the administration and bus routes.
Administration
Bus routes
The article is looking much better. Though, there's still a few issues here and there. I would suggest taking a look at the Manhattan article, which is probably similar to Wan Chai in that it is also a part of a city (a borough), and not a city unto itself. Manhattan is also a currently listed good article. East End of London would also be a good article to look at, and it's also on the GA list as well. One thing to notice specifically about these articles, is the organization and the prose - notice that the sections generally do not use bulleted lists, and are mainly well-organized and constructed paragraphs. Dr. Cash 18:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Bus route info are not useful to readers outside of HK. I completely understand and agree on that. I am just trying to figure out how to draw the line and suggest "we can't have any more bus routes because we are shooting for high quality articles." The local citizens feel this is an integral part of their lifestyle. Afterall HK is 90% public transportation. Bus route info appears on a number of HK articles actually. So how we treat this one can also affect future nominees. If someone told me this would end up being the most questionable part for going GA, I would have never guessed. Benjwong 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
We should be careful with the level of details that are offered as far as something like bus routes and MTR routes are concerned. They should be mentioned, but not at a very fine grain level of information, because that would be a violation of either WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#GUIDE. In essence, the article should not be written in a way that readers come here specifically to look for directions on how to get to and from Wan Chai. That's not the purpose of WP. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The article has been failed at WP:GAC as the on hold time has elapsed without issues being resolved. Please feel free to renominate it once the issues are resolved. The article is pretty close; the introduction & history section look good. Reference citations are still severely lacking in the buildings and community life sections. The organization of the transportation section is also sub-par; for the most part, it lacks good, readable prose (although the main roads and tunnels subsection appears reasonably good, the rest is just a collection of very trivial and hardly notable cruft. I also don't see why the 'external links' section has a second section after it called 'bibliography', which only contains external links anyway? This seems very redundant, and makes the article's organization look quite poor. All external links should go in the section entitled 'external links', and nowhere else; the section should be also listed at the end of the article as well.
Please feel free to renominate the article once you've addressed the issues (though I can't keep this indefinitely on hold while you debate the matter amongst yourselves).
Hope this helps improve the article! Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Central a.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the line (even though it is referenced):
'Modernising' is an odd term to use - what is modern in 1840? Moreover, the source I quote, a Chinese University historian, paints a very different picture, of lowly paid outcasts from bustling Central, and part of the area as a red-light district. So if anyone can reconcile this info, please do so, or discuss here. Earthlyreason ( talk) 09:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, can someone (the author,?) clarify the line:
Were these aerial bombardments? Certainly not after the original invasion. Or bombings? - also unlikely under rigid Japanese control. Earthlyreason ( talk) 09:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
http://hk-wanchai.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.83.178 ( talk) 07:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Another useful source here SCMP article, June 2014. Onanoff ( talk) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)