For whatever reason, I get no article content at all from those two sources; not even headlines. I can't really tell what's going on, due to the language barrier (which is worse in this case because the site is doing something that causes an automatic translator to slide off the page, so that I can only get translations of particular passages on the page by copy-and-pasting them to a translator). --Pi zero (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When there are a lot of sources, it can be really helpful to provide some sort of notes, either on the talk page or in embedded html comments in the article<!-- like this -->, indicating which information is to be found in which sources (or, if a source is provided for a single purpose, one might indicate that). Otherwise it can become very difficult to find things even when they're there. Sometimes it can also be helpful to provide some hints on translation of non-English sources (though one has to be careful, of course, not to deal with large passages and thus present a copyright violation problem).
In the event, I had a lot of trouble with the non-English sources — for example, variable spelling of people's names (both in translation and, iirc, also in English sources) meant I couldn't use string search to find references to people in the many sources. Also, a lot of stuff that the reporter may have perceived as common knowledge was actually unverifiable — I even bent the rules a bit by poking around on Wikipedia to see if it would provide trust-worthy sources, and as I've found usually happens with Wikipedia, it really didn't provide any useful sourcing for its assertions. So the end of the review involved some rather brutal cutting of unverified material (keeping in mind that the material is rapidly losing freshness and the author is believed to be unavailable at this time due to sleep cycle).
If I didn't misunderstand (which I might easily have done, of course), at least one of the sources was saying that there's no precedent for this sort of thing in Hong Kong. If true, that would have been interesting to mention in the article.
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.
When there are a lot of sources, it can be really helpful to provide some sort of notes, either on the talk page or in embedded html comments in the article<!-- like this -->, indicating which information is to be found in which sources (or, if a source is provided for a single purpose, one might indicate that). Otherwise it can become very difficult to find things even when they're there. Sometimes it can also be helpful to provide some hints on translation of non-English sources (though one has to be careful, of course, not to deal with large passages and thus present a copyright violation problem).
In the event, I had a lot of trouble with the non-English sources — for example, variable spelling of people's names (both in translation and, iirc, also in English sources) meant I couldn't use string search to find references to people in the many sources. Also, a lot of stuff that the reporter may have perceived as common knowledge was actually unverifiable — I even bent the rules a bit by poking around on Wikipedia to see if it would provide trust-worthy sources, and as I've found usually happens with Wikipedia, it really didn't provide any useful sourcing for its assertions. So the end of the review involved some rather brutal cutting of unverified material (keeping in mind that the material is rapidly losing freshness and the author is believed to be unavailable at this time due to sleep cycle).
If I didn't misunderstand (which I might easily have done, of course), at least one of the sources was saying that there's no precedent for this sort of thing in Hong Kong. If true, that would have been interesting to mention in the article.
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.
