Wikipedia:Peer review/The Scout Association of Hong Kong/archive1

The Scout Association of Hong Kong
After editing this article into the current state, I would appreciate feedback on the things that could be improved, aiming for Good Article status (I'm humble). Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Suggestions:
 * more refs
 * move one of the pics so that there is not a huge white space between the see also heading and the first item in the list
 * maybe a bit more on programs
 * It seems during WWII the Japanese let the Scouts continue; I thought they interred a lot of people. What affect did the occupation have on Scouting in Hong Kong
 * Re the return to Chinese control a few years ago...what affect did this have on the movement, if any? No mention is made of this. Rlevse 14:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Randy. The most notable issue is indeed the dependance of this article on merely one major reference (history of HK Scouting). Pics have been moved (could do with some more), programmes are pretty standard in The Scout Association, so don't need elaboration here. And personally I'd rather not include too much political information, as it easily askews into non-NPOV. Given the stability of the response here, would a GAC already be reasonable? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC).
 * I don't think the WWII and return to Chinese control would skew it as long as it was factual and referenced. For example, did HK Scouting cease to exist under Japanese control? IF SO, that is fact and not POV.  I'm asking, what if any affect was there during these times? Leaving them out leaves the reader wondering. Rlevse 18:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
 * P.S. The footnotes can be found here for now. Ruhrfisch 14:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfish. I use the peerreviewer script too, so it isn't surprising that it doesn't find anything wrong. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC).