Talk:Hundreds of Hong Kong district council seats go to pro-democracy candidates

in the thousands

A note on the current draft. The current start of the article, "[...] Hong Kongers turned out in the thousands", lacks reference. Is thousands a lot? I would have guessed not, though it sounds as if it were meant to be impressive. If turn-out was unusually high, that should be said, in some way that makes it clear. --Pi zero (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, you read my mind, Pi zero. The latest source gives a more reliable figure, and I have already provided some scale in a lower paragraph. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding China Daily's comment?

@Darkfrog24: I found the opinion piece from China Daily, a Chinese state-run media: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2019-11/27/content_37525597.htm Should we include it? Then, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to improve the news. Mariogoods (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... I found the more realiable source to provide Chinese government's view. "Fresh headache for China after Hong Kong democrats rout pro-Beijing candidates" (in en). Reuters. 25 November 2019. Archived from the original. . https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-protests-election-analysis/fresh-headache-for-china-after-hong-kong-democrats-rout-pro-beijing-candidates-idUKKBN1XZ0R8. Retrieved on 25 November 2019.  Mariogoods (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Unlike on Wikipieda, @Mariogoods:, the fewer sources we use the better, because the reviewers must read every word of every source before hitting "publish." This article is already under time constraints.

We should only add a third (or fourth or fifth) source if it contains good information that other sources do not. ...so let's see if they do!

The China Daily article provides what seems to me a biased summary of the protests. It calls them "rioters," for example, and says had things about the protesters but no bad things about police, whereas the sources we've used to cover this so far have given negative facts about both, like "the police shot a protester who was throwing bricks." Biased or not, if this source had, say, a quote from a Chinese official, we might use that quote, but it doesn't contain anything like that.

The Reuters source is indeed more reliable and it has specific quotes not provided in the other sources already in use. Are they better quotes than the ones already used? Oh, good question. I think I will put one in. Feel free to make any further modifications you think are good. It is your article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Thank you for your response and I also prefer using realiable sources to provide Chinese government’s official statements. In such a controversial topic, using Chinese state-run media should be with caution because they are spreading domestic and foreign propaganda (with the help of censorship) in the topic. The official and unofficial statements and comments in China are required to be based on their depiction of the movements or punished. ("Riots" has, in fact, become the mild words to describe the protests in China) So it is not strange if you find that their statements seems to comment a thing unrelated to the protests. Personally, I believed that we could cover offcial statements only (since unofficial statements and comments are echoing the official statements) , accept state-run media if it covers offcial statements and be careful. Mariogoods (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Right you are, Mariogoods. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4530270 [Passed]

Revision 4530270 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4530270 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

A small mistake

The news published in Wednesday, November 27, 2019. However, the first sentence says "On Sunday". I believed it is a mistake. Mariogoods (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mariogoods: The article was published on Wikinews on Wednesday, November 27. Afaics the election took place in Hong Kong on Sunday, November 24. That's a difference of three calendar days, which is, ordinarily, the extreme outer limit of how long after a focal event we may be willing to publish an article. We prefer to publish it sooner, of course. --Pi zero (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the elections took place on this past Sunday. A quick look at the Reuters and Al Jazeera should set your mind at ease about this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)