Jump to content

Talk:Causeway Bay Books disappearances

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCauseway Bay Books disappearances has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 27, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 8, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that five missing people linked to a Hong Kong bookshop are suspected of having been abducted by mainland China's Public Security Bureau?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 24, 2022.


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ellenchannn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Central Investigation Team

[edit]

We need to create a new page about the "Central Investigation Team" (中央专案组) mentioned by bookseller Lam Wing-kee. It is given other English names, including “Central Special Unit”, "Central Examination Group". Maybe reference the older Central Case Examination Group. Cossaxx (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since all media outlets say it is the same unit from the Cultural Revolution, I believe we should add new developments right into the Central Case Examination Group page and redirect all other names into that article. _dk (talk)

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Causeway Bay Books disappearances/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a Good article review for Causeway Bay Books disappearances. Shearonink (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

seems well-written, at first impression I can find no obvious issues.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    I did a spot-check of several of the Chinese-lkanguage references using Google Translate - so far as I can tell the references are all in order with the exception of Reference #51 - it is basically a bare URL. Please fill it out more completely.
Thanks for fixing that ref. Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    the article's authors are to be commended for keeping the tone dispassionate
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    pending my checking of the references. Shearonink (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So far as I can tell all the Chinese-language references check out. Review is now On hold pending Reference #51 being filled out more completely. Shearonink (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Refence #51 has been filled-out, congratulations to all the editors - it's a Good article. Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Causeway Bay Books disappearances. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Disappearances of Gui Minhai and Lee Bo

[edit]

Under the Disappearances for Gui Minhai, the following could be added: Gui's daughter who is in the U.K., did not think that her father returned to China out of his own will.

Under Lee Bo's section: The Hong Kong police received a nine-word notification from the Chinese province of Guangdong that Lee was in China but there was no specification of what he was doing there. The Hong Kong Secretary of Security had written to request access to Lee and has not received any information on the other missing men.[1] The Phoenix TV reported that Lee voluntarily handed himself over to the Chinese to assist in investigations but his travel document was found after the disappearance. There was no record of Lee crossing the border to mainland. The U.K. said the Lee most likely did not voluntarily hand himself to the Chinese government.[2] Ellenchannn (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Causeway Bay Books disappearances. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearances&oldid=1206581991"