This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all
Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to
join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
I am in the process of fact and reference checking. Not too easy. Any help is welcome. It seems very much like Wellington Barracks were of the site of the current
Harcourt Garden. But the Harcourt Garden article says that "The park is on land reclaimed from Victoria Harbour in 1863", which is inconsistent with a hospital being built there in 1841. What seems quite clear is that
Pacific Place was not built on land previously occupied by Wellington Barracks but by Victoria Barracks, with
Queensway between the two.
Underwaterbuffalo (
talk)
15:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Sorry for all the trouble – the sources in the article were all I could find on Wellington Barracks, and I didn't use Gwulo as I thought it wasn't quite a reliable source. Given all the inconsistencies among the articles, coupled with the lack of sources on the subject, should I withdraw the DYK nom? —
Bloom6132 (
talk)
19:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Don't worry for the trouble: the article is arguably quite better now than when you started editing it. Gwulo cannot be considered as a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, but what they say there is usually quite accurate, and in this case they mention their sources (maps). So I suggest to add their page in the external links section and not as a reference. The topic is quite complicated and as you say, the lack of sources is not helping. As it is now, there are several statements that I have marked with "citation needed" because I either cannot find a source or the sources given are conflicting with others. My conclusion is that it is a nice piece of work, but I wouldn't show it to the community as an example of a nice burgeoning article. I would therefore withdraw the DYK nom, but I let you decide. Thanks for the work!
Underwaterbuffalo (
talk)
20:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)reply