Talk:Hong Kong Commercial Daily

message: The diagram in the 'perception' section is far too big and the first few sentences sounds irrelevant to our topic on HK commercial daily. Please kindly cite and attribute the diagram obtained in 'notes and references'. And the "preception" section should not be set as a seperate section, as it's far too minor and doesn't help us to understand the newspaper better. I suggest we should put it in "Reflection", which will be a section on how people think about the paper.
Please try our best to save our page!
TONGck
I also agree with TONGck that the perception section is too minor. I think that it is a bit inappropriate to have a separate section for the content. How people think about the paper is not neutral enough to be mentioned here. We should keep our page a neutral point of view.
LIUch
Hong Kong Commercial Daily
----
*The diagram in the perception section is too small to see.  
*“It is being reviewed and considered as pro-Chinese by the public as seen from the graph.” – remember the wiki is being read from people from around the world.  “Pro-Chinese” makes no sense to people outside of HK, you must explain your terms, but also take into account that the entry needs to be NPOV – thus you should balance this point of view with others.
*See more comments at WebCT discussion section0101TA 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in "perception" section. 

message: * the introduction is way too long, methinks. most other pages' intro are much shorter. 2nd, the POV is hardly neutral (e.g. the use of the word "favourite"); you can say it's in the top ten best-selling papers, but you shouldn't say it's the HK people's favourite because that's opinion and not fact.--little Alex 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV & introduction 

message: * Dear colleagues, 
Maybe the editor wants us to create a perfect page, so what we can do now is to try our best to work on our site. 
Regards, 
WAIys
** there's no such thing as a perfect page, but whenever I do read this page, it feels more like the newspaper's website, with their press releases, etc. (it feels all "see, we've done this! look, we've done that!") so unless you're working for the newspaper, please present the material in a more...neutral, perhaps even critical perspective (i.e. start off as if you're critiquing the newspaper and then edit out the too negative parts instead of starting off thinking to "praise" the newspaper and then add in the neutral/critical parts). also, please use only its logo as the heading picture (please refer to the other newspapers). of course, this is only imho. --little Alex 14:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work Hard together! 

message: You should do an external link to the "survey and questionaire" so readers can go directly to see the original sources.  You also need to indicate the study is done only in Chinese and this is your English summary of it.  It also means you need to explain your terms, including translating the graph (remember this is an English speaking audience) they can't read Chinese, and they don't know what is the difference between Pro-Chinese and Pro-Hong Kong.  To be fair, you should also talk about the limitations of the study.  0101TA 11:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perception section 

message: I consider these to be the main current problems with the page:
*It reads like it was written by the marketing department and IMO is verging on advertising. As such, it's less encyclopaedic than is desirable
*It badly needs copyediting to fix some grammatical errors
*I think it has far too many sections. We don't need to know about every section of the paper in minute detail
*I don't think we need to drop the address. I've never seen another article with an address in it. If people want to contact the paper then they can visit the web site and obtain the address from there
I think that's it for now.
chowells 16:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Another thing. The image showing "readership research". I don't understand what on earth it's meant to mean. I think it needs an explanation or to be got rid of. chowells 16:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current problems 

message: Dear Sir/Madam, 
Do you think that you are too subjective? First of all, why is it like written by Advertising department? This is a page containing the information of Hong Kong Commercial Daily, of course, it will include History part, its CEO, Editor. Also, the features of the newspaper should be of interest to readers. For the readership part, readers finding information of the Daily may also want to know the target reader groups and the perception by readers toward the Daily. Are there any problems?
Apart from that, I suggest you browse through more websites, the contact details always contain the address. What is the problem of including the address part in the contact section? Without placing an address, how do readers contact the Daily?
As for the different sub-sections, it will be easier for readers to read. There's no problem with that.
Angelachan
: yes, most company website do have the company address, etc.; however, this *isn't* the HKCD's website. if people want to contact the HKCD, they should go to the HKCD website. the wikipedia's job, technically speaking, isn't to provide the wikipedia users a way to contact the HKCD (and if you must, most wikipedia pages usually just give the official website; we *are* a web project, after all). Its job is to briefly explain what in the world the HKCD is. I keep feeling like you're working for the HKCD; are you? there's a certain way people try to present info on the wikipedia; have you tried reading the other wikipedia pages to see how the info is generally presented? why don't you try reading the wikipedia page on the New York Times, see what info is presented there and try to do a comparison? --little Alex 17:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you too subjective?