Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Right of abode in Hong Kong/archive1

Right of abode in Hong Kong

 * Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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. Looking forward to feedback, Horserice (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text


 * File:Hkdemo.png: what are the images underlying this compilation?


 * File:HongKongRightofAbodePassport.jpg should include an explicit tag for the document itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to say I'm also curious about Hkdemo.png, as well as wondering what the purpose is of this hideous image. It's so tiny I can't tell what it's attempting to depict... people riding on a train? It looks like someone incorporated a probably-copyrighted stock image ten years ago and no one bothered to challenge it. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's meant to show riders on the MTR. Removed it from the template since it doesn't seem possible to trace its origin. Horserice (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Added alt text. Looks like the editor who created Hkdemo.png has been inactive for more than 10 years and there's no trail leading back to the source of that image. Removed it from the template. What do you mean by explicit tag? Horserice (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The current tag reflects the copyright of the person who took the photo - however, under US law reproduction of a 2D work does not garner new copyright, the copyright that matters is the thing being pictured. It's almost certainly in the public domain, we just need a tag that says so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Updated it with a Crown copyright tag. Usage seems to be in line with National Archives guidelines for reproducing the passport pages in this photo, so I believe this should be sufficient. Horserice (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment
The lead looks awfully brief, even for a shortish article. Does it cover all the main points raised in the article? Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanded the lead a bit. How's that work? Horserice (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Yes, better, but I'll leave others to decide on that, while I look at the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources review
Beginning. Problems, I'm afraid.
 * The first 4 sentences of "Background" read: "Hong Kong was a British colony from 1842 until its transfer to China in 1997. Right of abode eligibility was accordingly closely tied to British nationality law during colonial rule. All British subjects previously had unrestricted access to live and work in any British territory. Parliament gradually restricted this from 1962 to 1971, when subjects originating from outside of the British Islands first had immigration controls imposed on them when entering the United Kingdom." All this is cited to "Evans 1972", which is the MLR summary of the (British) Immigration Act 1971, 17 pages. Can you indicate where, in the MLR, the above info is found? A quick skim failed to find any reference to Hong Kong.
 * Limited the use of that source only to cite UK immigration restrictions. Added sources for the other lines.


 * Refs 2, 5, 7 and 10 are to Chen 1988, but unfortunately the link is returning a 404 error.
 * Relinked that article.


 * Ref 3: "Nationality law reform in 1981 reclassified the vast majority of Hong Kong belongers as British Dependent Territories citizens (BDTCs).". Cited to p. 31 of census report. Page 31 shows a table of figures, headed "Population by Nationality and Place of Birth, 1996". Where is your statement verified?
 * Added additional citation for that line. The census source is only there to illustrate how the nationality of residents were accounted for in official stats. It's redundant with the new source, but I just left it in.


 * Ref 8a: "The British and Chinese governments entered negotiations over the future of Hong Kong in the early 1980s and agreed on the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984. The basic principles for the right of abode are set as part of this treaty." Cited to Basic Law, article 24. Article 24 makes no mention of 1980s negotiations, or of the 1984 Joint Declaration.
 * Used alternate source.


 * Ref 8b: "The eligibility criteria for right of abode as defined in the Basic Law allows a much broader group of people to qualify compared to requirements enforced by the Immigration Department". Also cited to Article 24, but this looks like a broad interpretative comment, not evident in the article itself.
 * I rephrased that lead sentence to just be more generally descriptive of what's in the rest of that section.


 * Ref 9: "...(principles for the right of abode are) further defined in the Hong Kong Basic Law". This is cited to Annex 1 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The Annex is many pages long; I found reference to the principles of the right of abode in para XIV. You should specify this.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 11: "All BDTCs that did not have a connection with a remaining British Dependent Territory other than Hong Kong lost BDTC status on 1 July 1997, and the vast majority of them became Chinese nationals. Former BDTCs could only retain British nationality if they had registered as British Nationals (Overseas) prior to the transfer of sovereignty." What is the source of the document to which the above is cited? You need to specify – is it the British government?  Also, I'm not sure that your statement accurately reflects what's in the document, which states: "Former ethnic Chinese Hong Kong British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTCs) who did not register as BN(O)s ceased to hold British nationality on 1 July 1997 and became Chinese nationals", and "A former Hong Kong BDTC who was not ethnically Chinese and who did not register as a BN(O) automatically became a British Overseas Citizen (BOC) on 1 July 1997". (My italics in each case).
 * Changed phrasing to clarify.

So, I've found quite a few verification issues in the first handful of refs, which raise concerns about those not yet checked, or which I'm unable to check. I'd like your responses to these matters before I go on. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, these issues should be addressed. Horserice (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well done for dealing with these so promptly. But I'll give you a little time, so that you can see whether similar action is required with some of the later references. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I must've just omitted some by mistake, which is why I was able to add them in so quickly. Think the rest should be good, but let me know if I missed anything. Horserice (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @Brianboulton: If and when you come to conclusion on this, could you give me a ping? I am holding off on reviewing until I see how you get on with sources. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the reminder – I intended to look at it last weekend but got diverted...will definitely look tromorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Continuing sources review On the first batch of references, since I last looked the ref numbers have changed, and it's quite hard to follow the changes that have been made. But except where I've added a comment, I'll accept what's been said.

As to the rest, I've carried out a spotcheck to identify any further possible issues. The biggest general issue seems to be that of verification arising from imprecision, i.e. not citing the specific section of a source which supports the statement in the article. A few examples:
 * Ref 16: "All BDTCs who did not have a connection with a remaining British Dependent Territory other than Hong Kong lost BDTC status on 1 July 1997". Cited to The Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986. Which part of the Order?
 * Ref 19: Very difficult to navigate this source without further information.
 * Ref 26: "Children with foreign nationality who were born in Hong Kong and have permanent residency by descent also automatically lose right of abode at age 21 and are given the right to land. They may subsequently reapply for right of abode on the basis of a seven-year residence period". Cited to Immigration Ordinance Schedule 1, para. 4. This source paragraph is hard to follow, but it doesn't appear to mention "Children with foreign nationality", or losing right of abode, or the right to land, or a seven-year residence period.
 * Ref 40: "Hong Kong permanent residents are also subject to immigration controls in Macau, and must obtain residence permits if living there for more than one year". Cited to a lengthy Public Security Police Force of Macau document, with no indication where to find the specific information.
 * Ref 44: "In 1999, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) issued two judgements that granted right of abode in Hong Kong to children born in mainland China with at least one parent who had the right of abode". Cited to a court judgement which, again, is very long – 174 sections. Where to look?

These, as I say, are examples. I think you need to overhaul your sources presentation, looking at every source that does not at present cite a page or section number. With regard to the coordinator's comment below, it may be advisable that this work is done outside the FAC framework. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
I was going to archive this as it's nearly at the one-month mark without any support for promotion and issues identified with sourcing. I'll leave it open for now since you seem mid-work, but I'll be inclined to archive if many further issues are identified. It would be better audited outside of FAC in that case. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  13:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)