Talk:New faces emerge as veteran politicians step down in Hong Kong legislative election

Headline

@Emphrase: Per WN:Headline, a headline should be a sentence — it should have a verb. Also, headlines should avoid abbreviations. --Pi zero (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of that, it was a placeholder until the final results are in. --Emphrase (talk)

Review of revision 4247126 [Passed]

Revision 4247126 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I realize the reporter thought this would be a relatively easy review but, with all good intentions, it wasn't. In truth it was an extraordinarily difficult review. When a claimed fact in a synthesis article is not in the sources, there's a huge cost in review labor — it's many times harder to determine that something isn't there than to determine that it is, and that ratio goes up enormously when there are many sources (a typical synthesis article has maybe three sources; this had nineteen). A widespread problem was not being able to determine generally who was re-elected versus who was new; the reporter might simply know that, but trying to verify it was expensive and often unsuccessful. The guidance provided in embedded html comments did not, alas, usually streamline finding specific information. I suspect the reporter may be at a disadvantage because of what they already know, so that it's difficult to recognize what an international audience doesn't already know. What is "localist" as opposed to "pan-democratic"? An international audience certainly wouldn't know that. All the party names should be spelled out the first time and wikilinked (alas I didn't have the energy). The bigger picture, which really makes all of this interesting, is not repeated here; I have a sense that some truly interesting specifics about individual candidates were also omitted, but I don't recall any specifically (elapsed time for this review was over nine hours). 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 4247126 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I realize the reporter thought this would be a relatively easy review but, with all good intentions, it wasn't. In truth it was an extraordinarily difficult review. When a claimed fact in a synthesis article is not in the sources, there's a huge cost in review labor — it's many times harder to determine that something isn't there than to determine that it is, and that ratio goes up enormously when there are many sources (a typical synthesis article has maybe three sources; this had nineteen). A widespread problem was not being able to determine generally who was re-elected versus who was new; the reporter might simply know that, but trying to verify it was expensive and often unsuccessful. The guidance provided in embedded html comments did not, alas, usually streamline finding specific information. I suspect the reporter may be at a disadvantage because of what they already know, so that it's difficult to recognize what an international audience doesn't already know. What is "localist" as opposed to "pan-democratic"? An international audience certainly wouldn't know that. All the party names should be spelled out the first time and wikilinked (alas I didn't have the energy). The bigger picture, which really makes all of this interesting, is not repeated here; I have a sense that some truly interesting specifics about individual candidates were also omitted, but I don't recall any specifically (elapsed time for this review was over nine hours). 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.

Is the turnout really record-breaking?

If we just say that something is record-breaking and not attribute something to prove that it breaks any records for something, then it constitutes as a pufferous peacock statement to me.

A source saying that something is record-breaking isn't enough verification to me. Do any sources have any proof that the turnout breaks any records at all? What records does the turnout break?

--Turkeybutt JC (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Turkeybutt JC: I think it's reasonably clear in context that the turnout was record-breakingly large. Details were not given in our article, as you observed (doesn't specify whether it was the absolute count or the percentage, or both, that broke a record). All facts in a Wikinews article are understood to have been verified from the sources documented in the Sources section (this is the purpose of the Sources section: not to provide a link farm of related articles, but to document where the information in the article came from; we don't use footnotes to cite sources here). In the modern era of review, this means each fact in the article should have been drawn from the listed sources by the reporter and the verifiability of each fact from those sources should have been checked by the reviewer before publication. As I reviewed this article, fairly recently, I recall confirming the verification on that particular fact in the sources. --Pi zero (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What if there are turnouts larger than that one? I'm not sure what a turnout even is though... --Turkeybutt (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The percentage is the number of people who voted divided by the number of people eligible to vote. If that percentage is greater than 100%, it's clear the vote has been falsified. --Pi zero (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)