Talk:Hong Kong protesters surround downtown police complex

Plagiarism/copyright checker

@Pi zero, Gryllida, Acagastya: If you can link me to that plagiarism/copyright checking program mentioned a few months ago, I'll give it a run. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Try http://wikinewsie.org/dupdet/ --Pi zero (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Did not know the dupdet wason Wikinews is server as well. @Pi zero: I am not sure, however the two pages up for comparison are downloaded on the system for checking. I did not see the programme deleting the files after use, taking up the storage space. It would be better if that could be implemented. Is it done, @Gryllida:? Since it would start hoarding the storage and this is a personal site which Brian McNeil pays from his pockets, I would suggest using the one on WMF Tools, which exists for this very reason. Link. @Darkfrog24: if you can not remember the link, look for "dupdet wmflabs" on the Internet.
•–• 13:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I guarantee, those search terms would not have occurred to me. Fortunately, Pi zero was good enough to supply the link. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The wmf tool is linked from Wikinews:Tips on reviewing articles#Copyvio detector tools; however, I have found that quite a lot of the time, when I go to do a review the tool is not working. Hence our setting it up on wikinewsie.org. --Pi zero (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else has the server access. And it would be better if the temporary files were deleted. In any case, I hope that it deletes, or in future it deletes the temporary files. I might as well submit a PR today.
•–• 03:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4485492 [Not ready]

Revision 4485492 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This article is almost there but I have flagged minor issues in hidden comments. A major issue for me is the use of the BBC (two sources) and Al-Jazeera. We seem to rely far too much on the BBC as it is but it feels a little unbalanced to not include reporting by a local source such as the South China Morning Post and perhaps something from mainland China (although this is less necessary). Other than that it is a very good piece of work. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4485492 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This article is almost there but I have flagged minor issues in hidden comments. A major issue for me is the use of the BBC (two sources) and Al-Jazeera. We seem to rely far too much on the BBC as it is but it feels a little unbalanced to not include reporting by a local source such as the South China Morning Post and perhaps something from mainland China (although this is less necessary). Other than that it is a very good piece of work. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Thank you for your kind words. Made most of your recs. Exception: "Request the removal of" does not seem justified by the source material. Per the text, it looks like China would be able to actually remove people, not just ask and wait for permission. The source did not say who the critics were, but since the SCMP makes the statement in its own voice, perhaps this level of attribution is no longer required. Hm, this is a new one: Using an article about a subsequent development as a source for an earlier event. I don't see much problem with it; the SCMP article covers a lot of the same ground as BBC and Al J (with a few new bits of course). Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4485534 [Passed]

Revision 4485534 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Most of the earlier issues have now been addressed. Great work! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4485534 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Most of the earlier issues have now been addressed. Great work! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Would have been better if the headline would mention or hint "why". @Green Giant: this is, if I recall correctly, mentioned in WN:Headlines to mention the most unique important thing in the headline, use it for the next time.
•–• 13:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)