Talk:Edward Hewitt Nichols/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ado2102 (talk · contribs) 01:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article Ado2102 (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

This article represents a substantial amount of research and I found myself very interested to learn more about this fascinating character and the processes of HK parks and agriculture/aquaculture administration. However, as discussed further in the comments below, it fails the following elements of good article criteria (in bold):

1. Well-written: a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

3. Broad in its coverage: a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[5] and b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

General Concern: Overly detailed

This is my primary critique of the article. I do not want to go overly beyond the scope of the GA review, or to get bogged down in stylistic nitpicking, but I think the issues discussed here are relevant to whether the article as a whole is well-written beyond my personal style preferences, as it goes to readability. As part of this, I reviewed the following relevant policies, which I think it worthwhile to share.

• Wikipedia:Too much detail
• Wikipedia:Citation overkill
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Offline sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion

It appears that this article attempts to compile every written source in existence on this subject, and to pin-cite each statement it makes in the manner of a legal brief or academic publication. While I want to express my sincere appreciation for the amount of work this takes, I do not think that it makes sense in the encyclopedia format. Here are some examples of what I mean, with respect to biographical detail:

• There are two citations for the subject's birth place. Is the birthplace contested? Is the birthplace relevant to what makes the subject notable?
• There are three citations for his parents. Same questions.
  • Side note: both his parents are red-linked. Is there anything about either of them, other than that they are his parents, that make them independently notable?
  • In the Personal life section, his wife is also red-linked. Is she independently important or notable?
• A single page of the Hong Kong Who's Who for 1973 (Walker 1973 p. 341) is cited 22 times. A single page of the 1966 Hong Kong album is cited 8 times, often on the same points.
  • In the Early life section, the same two sources are cited four times each.
  • In the Personal life section, these are again cited several times each.
• There are citations to dozens of newspaper articles and dozens of other primary sources, each supporting a statement about a small detail of his life.

In general: the information in this article is too detailed without sufficient attention to relevance for what makes the subject notable. It should be substantially condensed. Here is a suggested rewrite of Early life:

Edward Nichols was born in Newcastle upon Tyne to Edward E. Nichols and Mary Hewitt. He studied agriculture and was admitted a Bachelor of Science from Durham University in 1945, and went on to advanced studies at Queens' College and the University of the West Indies. He married Annie Audrey Muse in 1951 and the couple had one daughter. (then drop one footnote to Lee 1966 and Walker 1973, and maybe nothing else)

Comments on Lead

Consistent with [Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography], my primary concern is the "notability" criterion. As earlier reviewer noted, there is an important story here about the creation of green space in Hong Kong, but it is very difficult to discern at first read. Really trimming up the lead may help substantially.

It is not immediately clear why this person is important enough to merit a Wikipedia page. Certainly, everyone is important, but why was he particularly notable and worth writing up? One possible edit to the first sentence to address this: ... was a British colonial official who served as the director of Hong Kong's Agriculture and Fisheries Department from 1965 to 1980 and was (one of the primary proponents of?) Hong Kong's unusually extensive country parks system. He was also..." Some other comments:

• Second and third paragraphs would better fit in early life section. Too much detail for lead. I'd recommend moving them, perhaps entirely, to below the lead.
• Fourth paragraph, second sentence: this suddenly shifts subject to Murray MacLehose for most of the sentence. Should eliminate discussion of what another person did, and focus everything on Nichols' actions.

• Fourth paragraph: there are a number of links to pages that don't exist. These should be cleaned up unless you intend to create those pages?

I have re-reviewed Wikipedia:Red link and want to revise this comment. What I'd suggest is that these red links be revised to specify jurisdiction. So, for example, it's not the "Country Parks Ordinance" but the "Country Parks Ordinance (Hong Kong)" or something similar (it could be styled with the same text, i.e., Country Parks Ordinance). Anyway, I'd consider that for the offices also. This is separate from whether these might not be better handled in, say Conservation in Hong Kong.

Colonial career section

Similar to above comments, this is exhaustive but unfocused. I think it could be combined with "early life" into an "early life and career" section and be reduced to one short paragraph: "From 1947 to 1959, Nichols worked in the Sierra Leone colonial government's agricultural division, rising to head director of agriculture in 1957. Among other work, he managed a rice research centre, promoted agricultural mechanisation, and served as assistant superintendent of police of Njala, Moyamba. In 1959 he moved to Hong Kong to become the assistant director of the Hong Kong Agriculture and Fisheries Department, where he managed agricultural affairs."

Director Section: Other work

This is the last subsection but I'll discuss it first.

• First paragraph. What is the relevance of his service on these committees to his importance? Did he contribute? How? Was it unusual for somebody in his position to serve on this many committees or anything notable like that? What is the context? Why does it matter? My sense is that it doesn't, and this could all be omitted.
• Second paragraph. What is the relevance of his attending these meetings? Were they important? Did he contribute? How? Was it unusual or notable for a person in his position to attend such meetings? My sense is that this is a typical part of the job. This could be summarized as "He performed other typical duties of his office," which is probably not remarkable, and so could be omitted entirely.
• Third paragraph. It's interesting and unusual that he actively promoted life saving. I'd keep this part as a small independent subsection.
• Fourth paragraph. The details of the administrative reorganization of the division don't seem all that important. Government divisions are reorganized all the time.

In general, I would combine this material into brief introductory paragraph to the whole subsection that describes the typical duties of a Director of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, and consider separating that material into a separate page if you want to go into so much detail about the history and development of the position. All you need to say is that in his role as director he performed a variety of other typical duties, including attending international meetings and representing Hong Kong's interests, and then move onto his major projects section by section.

Director Section: Establishment of Country Parks

• This seems like his most important and significant work and it might make sense to highlight it first, unless there are strong reasons (like preservation of chronology?) to put it later.
• Regarding the quote, it appears that he did not speak Chinese? Or did he learn it when he came to Hong Kong? I ask because the English seems a little off and I wonder if the quote was made in English, but then reported in Chinese, and then translated back to English?
• First paragraph. After the first sentence, it is not clear what Nichols' role in any of this was.
• Second, third, and fourth paragraphs. These seem like the most important content in the entire article. But it has taken some time to get here.

Ag/Aquaculture, Cooperatives and Credit Unions

My comments on this material are consistent with the prior comments.

Personal life section

It is not clear why information is included here rather than in the main biography (e.g., early life). I recommend combining.

Honours section

The Honours sections is redundant and has other problems:

• • Already says he was made a JP in his early life section and he's marked as a JP in his infobox.
    • Note: the infobox JP is linked to JP:Canada?
  • Already says he was OBE and CBE in Later life section, and CBE is noted in his infobox.
  • It's not clear what the Silver Jubilee honor was. Is it supposed to be a reference to the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal?

I recommend adding Silver Jubilee medal to main narrative and deleting the rest of this section.