Talk:Wellington Barracks, Hong Kong

Untitled

See Harcourt Garden for many referenes, including military maps, that would help with expanding this article. Onanoff (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Location

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)

Related articles are almost all inconsistent: Queensway, Hong Kong says that the golden ball was in Admiralty Dock. The HMS Tamar (shore station) article has details about Wellington Barracks, quite different from the ones in this article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional resources here: [1] [2] [3] Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the hospital was rebuilt, and the hospital + the battery was essentially Wellington Barracks. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)