Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Right of abode in Hong Kong/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 January 2020 [1].

Right of abode in Hong Kong[edit]

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about permanent residency in Hong Kong. Rewrote this article a while ago and think it's up to FA standards. Given current events in the city, looking at its colonial history is particularly interesting. Addressed sourcing issues since last FAC and should be good to go on that front. Hoping this nomination will get a bit more traction this time around, and looking forward to feedback on the content. Horserice (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif

  • There have been no substantial edits since the last nomination, and only some of the sourcing issues have been addressed. I can certainly write a full review, but it doesn't seem to have improved to FA standard in the last two weeks. I also feel like this was GA nominated a while ago but seems to have been removed from there? Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to note that there was no feedback on the actual content of the article in the last review, so there couldn't have been anything substantial for me to address. Seems like a leap to say it's not up to spec when that was the only outstanding issue? And yeah, I removed it from GAN because seven months without a review is long enough. Your feedback on the content would be appreciated. Horserice (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, both of those assertions are highly questionable. Some initial content comments:
The lead does not read like a lead, it reads like an introduction. This is just some stylistic phrasing, perhaps a review of leads in similar articles and/or MOS:LEAD could point this to be better.
The first line of MOS:LEAD says: The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction), so I don't understand what you're trying to point out by saying that the lead reads like an intro.
Leads are supposed to be an overview of the article, not an introduction to the topic. I also think overall it was the phrasing. It doesn't read like a lead, it almost sounds more instructional (i.e. lecture-y)... you know? Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm but I don't know. Opinions from other editors would be nice here? Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, is there any reason that the sidebar is in conflicting shades of green and blue? It's not easy to look at.
It's pretty old and I think whoever made it was trying to approximate the green used on Hong Kong identity cards. Changed the color scheme to be a bit more muted.
Right of abode eligibility was accordingly closely tied could be rephrased to something more easy-to-read.
As with Residents with the right of abode are unconditionally allowed to reside; Those who additionally do not possess the right of abode in foreign countries may stand for office; probably other parts but I would defer to someone more familiar with the ideals of FA prose these pointers.
Tweaked some of the phrasing, but it's written that way to be unambiguous in meaning even if a bit cumbersome.
The background may be too detailed on elements of British nationality that are not really related to right of abode in Hong Kong.
Equally, a bit more detail on complex terms like belonger status, given its relevance, may be useful.
It would be important to distinguish between previous rules on residency and the legally-defined 'right of abode', i.e. why the previous rules are under 'background' and not 'history' (that it's not a different version of the rules, it was a different rule altogether). Unless it is a previous version of the same right of abode law, as Prior to 1997, acquisition of the right of abode... seems to suggest. So this is unclear.
Regulations on residency are largely carried over from the colonial era with relevant changes hashed out through negotiations between the British and Chinese governments. So yes, the rules for residency in British Hong Kong are a previous iteration of the ones currently in effect today, updated to be tied to Chinese nationality law. The focus on British nationality law in the background section is to illustrate how right of abode in this territory evolved to its current state and why it remains distinct from residency in the rest of China. Belonger status is just a synonym for permanent residency, which itself is just a label for possessing right of abode; I'm really not sure what you'd expect to be elaborated on there.
Even just some expansion on the term 'belonger', since it is used nowhere else? Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the phrasing a bit, maybe that works for you? Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there is conflict and discussion on the acquired residents having and not having certain rights? I'd expect some coverage of legal, policy, public debate history of the 'rights and privileges' and 'restrictions' sections.
The part where it says A limited number of residents with foreign nationality or right of abode in other countries may be elected to functional constituency seats in the legislature does not then suggest who or why. So, who? And, why?
There's two things that foreign nationals can't do: 1) hold an HKSAR passport and/or mainland travel and residence permits 2) run for most LegCo seats. I'd consider the first one to be self-explanatory because as a general rule, virtually no one can hold a passport of a country they're not a citizen of. Eligibility for the travel and residence permits has always been exclusive to Chinese nationals. For candidacy in the legislature, I don't think it's in scope of this article and should go in the articles on the Legislative Council or functional constituencies since the restrictions are not directly related to Hong Kong right of abode itself.
  • I may add more detailed notes, but this came from a quick skim and feels like at least somewhere to start. Kingsif (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Horserice: Thanks for the responses and edits! Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Sorry for the delayed response, the holidays were distracting. Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Could you take a look again at the sources? Don't think I missed anything. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahh that's unfortunate to hear :/ He will be missed. Horserice (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

I'm afraid this has once again slipped far down the list with very little attention. It will be archived soon unless it receives some significant review. --Laser brain (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @John M Wolfson: With only two sets of comments, I don't think it's going to get promoted unless more reviewers contribute something soon. I haven't had a further look since, but might give it a look tonight. Kingsif (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fair enough. I myself am currently on the fence about this article, but I appreciate Horserice's responsiveness. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson[edit]

Here are some comments. I inserted some stuff in the lead a while back but I still find it rather wanting.

  • Individuals with this right are called permanent residents I assume this is distinct from Hong Kong residents in general (otherwise there'd likely be talk of a merger); how precisely are they different?
  • The generic term includes nonpermanent residents, which is used to describe anybody living in Hong Kong for more than 6 months. There isn't anything specific to say about this group of people in relation to right of abode, since all requirements applicable to them are applicable to everyone else.
Ah, in that case the link should just be to "residents" and not include "permanent".
  • That wouldn't make sense in this context though? Permanent residents are defined as having right of abode, so removing "permanent" in this sentence would make it incorrect.
  • No, from the link, like so: permanent residents.
  • Ah, got it.
  • Foreign nationals ... are given most rights usually associated with citizenship, including the right to vote in regional elections. What rights don't they have, especially with respect to full citizenship? I know it's in the "Restrictions" section, but it should also be in the lead.
  • I don't think that should be focused on in the lead. It would be strange to focus on a detail that doesn't really have to do with right of abode itself, but foreign nationality. I elaborated on it in an earlier response, but the only two things foreign national residents can't do is: 1) obtain an HKSAR passport and 2) stand for office in the directly elected portion of the legislature. There would have to be a lot more elaboration on LegCo in the lead than is appropriate in that section, so it's best left to sections below.
  • Given that the lead should be an overview and not just an introduction, as Kingsif said above, I feel a passing mention of the restrictions is appropriate.
  • Added a bit.
  • Although the territory, ... Should be simply "Hong Kong".
  • I'm avoiding repeating instances of "Hong Kong", but I tweaked it to name those places in that part.
  • Fair enough, I just don't want people to get confused.
  • [F]oreigners are only eligible on the basis of the seven years immediately preceding their applications. I infer so, but need those years be continuous/consecutive?
  • Yes, made it explicit.
  • Thanks.
  • Hong Kong permanent residents do not have automatic residence or employment rights in mainland China. Should be cited.
  • The next sentence after that details which permits you would need to obtain permission for residence and employment, so I'd consider the citations there to be adequate.
  • Fair enough, I don't think it falls under MINREF, so it should be good.
  • Also, there aren't any images, against criterion 3. I know it's hard to illustrate this kind of stuff, but perhaps an image of a document related to permanent residency might be in order, even if fair-use.
  • The last image I used was deleted, but maybe this one will work.

That's what I can think of for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, made some changes in responses. Horserice (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, did another pass at your comments. Horserice (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • they are not entitled to hold territorial passports is not elaborated/cited in the body, unless I've missed it.
  • Yeah, it's in the rights section. "Chinese nationals with right of abode..."
  • Are their any restrictions on Macanese residents in entering Hong Kong, like for mainland Chinese? It's probably not that relevant, but perhaps it could round out that Mainlanders also cannot enter Hong Kong.
  • Added at end of lead.
  • What reactions were there to the Court of Final Appeal continuing the exclusion of FDHs to right of abode status?
  • Added a bit more in that section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Right_of_abode_in_Hong_Kong/archive2&oldid=937430787"