Talk:Amina Bokhary controversy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 12:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Deryck Chan

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is very good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MoS followed.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References section is fine.
	2b. 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).	All statements are backed up by the sources. No plagiarism detected.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think it does.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Although this is a controversial topic, the article does quite well at respecting all points of view.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image has a valid license, and Hong Kong's copyright law allows photographs of buildings.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Caption is good. I wish we had more images, but I can't find any. Even Flickr doesn't seem to have anything relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent work.

Resolved issues

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lede should summarize all sections of the article without giving any information that isn't included elsewhere. This three-sentence lede is well-written, but far too short. Also, if the ruling is said to have been criticized as "soft", that needs to be in the body, and properly sourced. Once the lede is fixed, there is no need to have citations in the lede, since all statements will be sourced when they are described in detail in the body.
  • The lede is now long enough, and summarizes all sections. There are still problems in the lede, listed below. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• The "Reactions" section is by far the longest section. You might want to subdivide it by separating out reactions by police, by politicians, by the public, by the DoJ (including a potential appeal), or some other organization you find fitting. (Don't subdivide it too far, of course.) Also, some of the reactions are not truly noteworthy and should probably be removed. For instance, Andrew Li's quote does not seem to be about the case at all; in my view, that one-sentence paragraph and the quote should be removed. (The lengthy quote by Yuen is appropriate, however.) Ronny Tong is mentioned as expressing concern, but the article doesn't say what he said or why it was important, and I suspect his name should be removed as well. The public polling information gives more detailed statistics than is useful to the reader; the lengthy sentence beginning "Another survey of 1,007 people..." should be summarized, with detailed stats given in the footnote if at all.
  • All these issues have been dealt with, thank you. I have a minor nitpick: I believe "Reactions" should be a top-level division (on the same level as "background" and "incident"). I don't insist on this, but I think it's a good idea. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• The article states "the Department of Justice (DoJ) stated on 4 August that they were looking for grounds to appeal Bokhary's sentence", but this is sourced to this article, which merely says the DoJ "is still investigating the rationale of Bokhary's sentence and will decide if a review is needed after the investigation." I don't think "looking for grounds to appeal" is a fair assessment.
  • This is fixed, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• The lede calls the sentence "soft", in quotes, but the cited source does not use that word. In fact, the source was published in 2008, before the event even happened.
  • After expansion, the lede still call the sentence "soft", but this claim is not in the body of the article and (therefore) is not sourced there. The lede should not give a quote that isn't in the body, and the article should not give an unsourced quote. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate to name and link to people in the lede who were not involved in the incident, and who are only involved in the controversy because of the fact that they have a wayward niece. They should be named in the body, but not the lede.
  • I made this change. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

None remaining.

Questions

• You convert HK$ to US$ in one part, but not others, and I'm not sure why. Would it be better to do so everywhere, or nowhere, or perhaps in the first instance only?
  • This is fine now. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Would Category:Political protests in Hong Kong be appropriate? Or is that overstating things?

• The article states "if leave is granted, then Wong will review Bokhary's sentence". But that was almost exactly a year ago. Is this still a possibility?
  • No longer an issue. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why is Kemal Bokhary singled out in the lede, when she has many other politically-connected relatives? Would it be better to simply say she comes from a wealthy and well-connected family, and leave individual family members to be named in the background section?
  • The lede has been expanded dramatically, and this issue has changed to an "unresolved issue", above. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Should "Reactions" be a top-level section? See the second "Resolved issues" entry for more. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Thanks, I have cleaned up the article somewhat. I'm leaving it for a few days and will come back to see if my changes haven't introduced nonsense or messed-up prose. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There are only a few issues left. It's almost there! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This article now passes all criteria. Congratulations! – Quadell ^(talk) 15:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)