Talk:Hong Kong protests continue through police opposition, rainstorms

[1] potential illustration? --Gryllida (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks nice, but is it available for us to use? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Demonstrations against extradition bill in Hong Kong, 2019 has loads of recent images, though none yet from Sunday. --SVTCobra 14:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Do you have a specific recommendation? (Although historically reviewers have sometimes just chosen and added an image, in recent times it's been suggested the image choice is content, since it's covered by the archive policy, and so reviewers really oughtn't choose an image on their own.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:190810 HK Protest Incendo 06.jpg from last Saturday shows people marching with umbrellas (though for protection from sun and not rain). --SVTCobra 14:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a cache of Flickr images I can upload. So just hold on. --SVTCobra 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

We can now select from Commons:Category:Demonstration against extradition bill, 18 August 2019. If I were to pick one, it'd be File:Hong Kong protests - P1055595.jpg because it is impressive and I think it must be the causeway described in the article (Yes, street signs point to both Causeway Bay and Tin Hau, which are mentioned as the origin point of the march) but there are many good ones. --SVTCobra 15:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Hong Kong protests - IMG 20190818 152745.jpg shows a banner with the young woman with the injured eye, also mentioned in the article. --SVTCobra 16:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4502078 [Passed]

Revision 4502078 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm uncertain that the last two sources on the list are justified, though verifying that removal would be completely justified would be way more trouble than it'd be worth. Note, in general, if facts are verified by a previously vetted Wikinews article (anything in the modern era) the Related news entry is all we need to verify them. Regarding the final clause of the lede, about encroachment. Yes, our neutrality requires us to avoid asserting the encroachment in our own voice; I appreciate the submitted phrasing sought to attribute it to the protesters. However, the verb choice —protesters see— was itself problematic; avoid claiming to know what people think or feel. Eliminating the verb entirely calls from some adjustment because saying "China's encroachment" seemingly says there is encroachment there for China to possess; however, protesting "against Chinese government encroachment" avoids this problem, if narrowly. (Small point: adding the word "government" avoids potential ambiguity of "Chinese encroachment".) 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 4502078 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm uncertain that the last two sources on the list are justified, though verifying that removal would be completely justified would be way more trouble than it'd be worth. Note, in general, if facts are verified by a previously vetted Wikinews article (anything in the modern era) the Related news entry is all we need to verify them. Regarding the final clause of the lede, about encroachment. Yes, our neutrality requires us to avoid asserting the encroachment in our own voice; I appreciate the submitted phrasing sought to attribute it to the protesters. However, the verb choice —protesters see— was itself problematic; avoid claiming to know what people think or feel. Eliminating the verb entirely calls from some adjustment because saying "China's encroachment" seemingly says there is encroachment there for China to possess; however, protesting "against Chinese government encroachment" avoids this problem, if narrowly. (Small point: adding the word "government" avoids potential ambiguity of "Chinese encroachment".) 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.