Wikipedia:Peer review/Esing Bakery incident/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to edit this article up to GA status and haven't completed the process before, so I would appreciate any assistance and comments.
Thanks, —Nizolan (talk · c.) 23:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Nizolan: From a quick glance through the article, I'd say this is well on its way to GA status, and is probably fit to nominate now. I have only two substantial comments:
- there could be more given in §Background: a brief discussion of the fact that Hong Kong had been a British colony for 15 years and a little about what the Second Opium War was about, perhaps.
- the article doesn't discuss why Cheong Ah-lum was tried for the attempted murder of Dempster in particular. Was there a particular reason?
- The sources are obviously reliable, the article appears appropriately neutral and is sufficiently well-written for GA, the images are all clearly out of copyright. I haven't spot checked the sources to make sure they support the claims made or checked for close paraphrasing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Caeciliusinhorto-public: This is very helpful, thank you. Point 1 is well-taken and I'll get on that. On point 2, I'll need to dive back into the sources but my recollection is that Dempster was chosen more or less randomly. The case was unprecedented in English legal history as there wasn't a statutory crime of mass murder. Iirc, the Hong Kong government considered passing laws specifically to cover this case but it was vetoed by the Colonial Office in London. That bit of legal history could merit a paragraph on its own so I'll try to put one together later today. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 13:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- I added an extra paragraph for the background, and I couldn't find the particular legal history source I was thinking of, but I included a general clarification about the nature of the charge. Closing this review now and kicking it on to GAN. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Caeciliusinhorto-public: This is very helpful, thank you. Point 1 is well-taken and I'll get on that. On point 2, I'll need to dive back into the sources but my recollection is that Dempster was chosen more or less randomly. The case was unprecedented in English legal history as there wasn't a statutory crime of mass murder. Iirc, the Hong Kong government considered passing laws specifically to cover this case but it was vetoed by the Colonial Office in London. That bit of legal history could merit a paragraph on its own so I'll try to put one together later today. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 13:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)