Jump to content

Talk:Norodom Chakrapong/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I'll do this review. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curly Turkey, please see appended comments below:

Prose

[edit]
  • I've done some copyedits. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and feel free to disagree with any feedback I have below:
  • to Sihanouk and Sisowath Pongsanmoni: would either of these be worth a redlink? Sihanouk in particular, as the text says he was Prime Minister.
I have redlinked Sihanouk in the lead sentence already: "He is the fourth son of Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia and a half-brother of the current king, Norodom Sihamoni." If I am not mistaken, guidelines advised us that redlinking once would be more than enough. As for Sisowath Pongsanmoni, I have little information about her beyond that she is one of many Sihanouk's wives. Unless an article is created, I do not see the point of doing so, and my take is that I would not create a stub page to simply state that she is Sihanouk's wife....that may not conform to WP:Notability guidelines... Mr Tan (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the guidleines say to link once (and I missed that it was in the lead). The lead is a summary of the body, though, and so normally we also link (or redlink) again at the first instance in the body, too. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ran a small enterprise: do we know what kind of enterprise?
The source from "Narong (2005), p. 208" on this period of Chakrapong's life that I referenced merely stated:

....He then lived in the former Yugoslavia, as the guest of the late President Joseph Broz Tito, and undertook further training with the Yugoslavian Air Force Staff College. At the end of this training, he requested political asylum in France where he became a small businessman. After the formation of FUNCINPEC, Samdech Preah joined the party and established himself at the Thai Cambodian border in charge...

I tried to cross check other resources, but there is no elaboration on what kind of enterprise that he was dealing with. If there is more source information I will be glad to input, but the furthest that we can infer that he is probably an owner of a Small and medium-sized enterprises. Mr Tan (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortuante, but I suppose there's nothing you can do. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1991 Paris Peace Accords: worth a redlink? There's an article for the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.
DoneMr Tan (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thayer had initially attempted to contact United States Ambassador Charles Twining to seek asylum in the country: does "the country" mean "the US"?
Yes, but would it sound a little awkward given this way: "Thayer had initially attempted to contact United States Ambassador Charles Twining to seek asylum in the United States, but was unsuccessful." ...The US is repeated twice in one sentence? But anyway I am fine to go along Mr Tan (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to reword it, but, hmmm... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the Khmer Soul Party failed to win any seats in the 2003 general elections, and returned to Funcinpec in March 2004.: should that be "he returned", or is something missing here?
Done. Basically Chakrapong dissolved his splinter party, known as the "Khmer Soul Party", and returned to join FUNCINPEC in March 2004. Mr Tan (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 2005, a new position of Inspector General was introduced to the party's executive committee, and Chakrapong was appointed to the post.: Was Chakropong appointed the same month the post was created?
Addressed Mr Tan (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the source [1], these 2 party members were unhappy with his appointment to the sec-gen post of the party. From the source, Nhek Bun Chhay gives the following reasons:

"There are reasons Chakra­pong is not qualified for the post,” Nhiek Bun Chhay said. “Firstly, in 1992, he led Sihanoukists to join the Cambodian People’s Party. Se­condly, he led a secessionist move­­­ment to oppose the Funcin­pec victory in the 1993 election. And thirdly, he set up his own par­ty, [the Chakrapong Khmer Spirit Party, in 2002], insulting and at­tacking Funcinpec."

But I do not think it would be appropriate to go into detail in the context of this article, otherwise it would amount to overelaboration. Anyway, I have re-phrased a little... Mr Tan (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • to secure 472 out of 11,459 commune councilor positions available: what does "councilor position" mean here?
Councilor seats, its just like in a national parliament, there will be a certain given number of given of seats. If I understand correctly for example, the Parliament of Canada has 308 MP seats. The same concept applies here Mr Tan (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it should be placed in the Business career section for purely technical reasons. As you can see, the infobox is very long, and given that the Family section is right next to the reference section, it will trail into the Reference section. I do not want the infobox to create a white dead space due to the trail. Perhaps I might want to illustrate this via screenshots:

Default in business section:

But if I place the infobox to "Palace relations", note the dead space in the "Reference" section:

  • Chakrapong has six full siblings, consisting of three brothers (Yuvaneath, Racvivong and Khemanourak) and four younger sisters (Sorya Roeungsi, Kantha Bopha and Botum Bopha).: three plus four is seven, is it not?
Oops, math error amended. Mr Tan (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not hesitate to revert to me if you feel that there are outstanding issues to be addressed. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No free images at the moment, but I thought as per Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles, there is a clause that states, "The article should comply with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. Any images used should be appropriate to the article, have captions and free licenses or valid fair use rationales."? I hope that this would not be an obstacle to GA criteria. I found some non-free images online such as [2]. I plan to contact various authors to see if they can release images of Chakrapong, Ranariddh, emblems of political logos etc under Creative Commons or GFDL in future during my holiday season. Mr Tan (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know they're not required, but I'm surprised that there aren't any—sorry, I wasn't implying that the article would fail without them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious, why did you add an "&nbsp" sign to all the page numbers? Wouldn't a basic spacing such as eg: "p. 7" or "pp. 21-22" would be sufficient without all the HTML? I do not see any technical differences without the HTML, and might make editing for other editors not too convenient...... Mr Tan (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I keeps the "p." and the number together—it prevents them from pbreaking apart if they happen to come at the end of a line. If you don't like it, feel free to revert it—I don't believe there's a guideline that mandates them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • Ref#4: You seem to have used the source appropriately, but an interview is not the best of sources—are there any other sources that give this information?
Why don't you think so? :) My take is that an interview source from the subject himself is definitely beneficial, as the subject knows his life history best. I do not condemn second-hand sources written by other biographers, but sometimes when they summarise life events or rephrase, details can get lost or possibly misconstrued. Anyway, this interview only cited two points in the whole article, and as a whole my take is that using a mixture of sources from books written by biographers and political scientists, newspaper reports and interviews is the way to write something that is "balanced" in content as a whole.
But if you strongly feel that the interview should not be used, I can offer a close alternative citation in the form of "Mehta (2001), p. 149", phrase: "Following irreconcilable differences with Ranariddh, Chakrapong defected from his father's Funcinpec party to join Hun Sen's Cambodian People's Party (CPP) in early 1992. The sudden flight of the former Royal Cambodian Air Force fighter pilot Chakrapong to the rival camp was, ....", but I do not see as many details that this source can offer as compared to the interview. I felt that the interview was a good read and offered good insights as I was writing this article. Mr Tan (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the subject himself is likely to be biased in his own favour—you've used the interview only for strict facts, which is okay, but a third-party source gives reviewers more confidence. The interview's fine as you've used it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#11: I don't see in the source where you get: "In May 1991, Chakrapong hinted that the Cambodian People's Party (CPP) could rebel if they were to lose an election."
In the article, Chakrapong never quoted the prospect of a coup per se but the following phrase does provide a strong hint: "The concept of sharing power with enemies is alien to the former communists in the CPP leadership and to modern Cambodian political culture. Asian diplomats said Chakrapong, during a visit to Beijing in May, responded to a diplomat who asked him what the CPP reaction to losing the elections as: "Remember Burma."" If you check the date, it was written in June 1993. He was most probably pointing to the coup that happened in Burma back in 1990 when Aung San Suu Kyi won an election but was denied power and subsequently the military took power. You may refer to Burmese general election, 1990. I agree that what I input was a degree of editorial interpretation, and thought it would be useful to provide some joining content. If you have any alternative, more relevant interpretations, I would be glad to accept the new suggestion, but if you cannot agree then you may just remove it altogether. Mr Tan (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the thing—we're not suppose to "interpret" the sources. I think it would be best to remove it, or to report strictly what the sources have said. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agree to you to some extent and edited out the part. Mr Tan (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#14: I don't see in the source where you get: "As the minister in charge of overseeing tourism affairs, Chakrapong led a government working committee to review policies and strategies of the tourism department."—it only talks about the Angkor Wat stuff.
Granted, I admit it is a little difficult to elaborate since this is the only source available on Chakrapong's involvement with the Angkor Wat administration, and have since replaced it with another point. But my take is that it would be very sad if nothing is elaborated on Chakrapong's achievements as DPM since this is a high office position of the country. Mr Tan (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you've taken out mention of Angkor Watt, and have removed the source that was there ... ? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I basically replaced it with another point/fact, if you look at the last sentence of the para. I don't see any additional sources that followed up on Chakrapong's call to lower the Angkor Wat fees - whether this act was actually implemented after the cabinet meeting as stated in the source. As there were no additional available references that I could find on this act by Chakrapong, it would be very hard to elaborate or explain since there is a missing gap in follow-up events. Hence, I felt it would be better to remove and replace it with another point that is more straightforward and less subjective to interpretation ..... Mr Tan (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#19: I don't see in the source where you get: "prompting Sin Song to recall his troops to Prey Veng"
There is a 4th book (Benny Widyono-Dancing In Shadows) that actually states this point, but it would be a "waste" to cite that just one point. Anyway, I made a slight modification to comply with existing sources. "Mehta (2013) , p. 244": "A truckload of rebels was seen moving into Phnom Penh, but they were quickly disarmed before they could put their plan into action. Within minutes it was all over. It was believed that Chakrapong had launched the coup plot after the CPP...." Mr Tan (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#23: I don't see in the source where you get: "In 1999, the King granted him a pardon with Prime Minister Hun Sen's agreement." The source says: "He received amnesty from King Norodom Sihanouk in 1998 and returned in 1999.". It doesn't mention the PM, and if an amnesty is the same as a pardon, then it was granted in 1998, not 1999.
Apologies, I made a slight editorial mistake, amended. Anyway for your benefit, this is the full quote from the source "Mehta (2001), p. 161":
"Over at the Royal Palace, Sihanouk was told his sons had patched up, and he pardoned his capricious child in 1998. It was a happy reunion, but would Chakrapong's sensible phase last? With the same stroke of the pen, Sihanouk pardoned  his half-brother Sirivudh, in exile on charges of allegedly plotting to murder Hun Sen. The royal decree paved the way for both princes to return home after strongman Hun Sen gave it his nod. " Mr Tan (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#25: I don't see in the source where you get: "was appointed the first vice-president of the senate"
You need to examine Ref #25 and Ref #26 together to get the picture. #25 stated the planned appointment, and in #26, it was stated that Chakrapong was appointed to the post. Mr Tan (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the info's in ref#26, then you'll have to repeat that ref for the statement it's referencing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, made a little shift in ref#25 forward, since ref#25 stated Ranariddh's plans for Chakrapong's appointment and ref#26 shows that Chakrapong had been actually appointed Senate vice (or deputy) president, with the following phrase: "Prince Chakrapong, who was also named Senate first deputy pres­ident by Prince Ranariddh this year,....". But it is necessary to quote ref#25 as well since it reflects his senate seat based in Prey Veng. #Ref 26 (dated 10 Mar 2006) reflects states that Chakrapong has been appointed to the post in the sentence, "Prince Chakrapong, who was also named Senate first deputy pres­ident by Prince Ranariddh this year,...", and also elaborates Chakrapong's nomination for FUNCINPEC's sec-gen and dissent with the party at length, shown in sentences such as "Voicing unprecedented dissent, senior Funcinpec officials spoke out in criticism of their embattled party leader Prince Norodom Ranariddh ...." I hope that the rearrangement with the rationale stated above may have adequately addressed the issue? Mr Tan (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the inline citations cite whatever comes immediately before it—you can't say the information is in the next citation. Doubling citations is fine (using the same citation twice, or having two or more citations for a piece of text). You don't have to rewrite the text to acommodate the citations. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Anymore outstanding arrears? I believe it should be ready to be passed if otherwise... Mr Tan (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I reverse my stance on this. I believe that unless there is a break in the sentence (Eg: Sentence 1 quotes from Source A, Sentence 2 from Source B and Sentence 3 from Source A, all 3 should have a footnote because of a break in Sentence 2. If all 3 sentences comes from Source A then one footnote at the end of Sentence 3 would be sufficient. Provided that all 3 sentences are in one paragraph You maybe right to some extent here but it appears that this is making a Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Mr Tan (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to cite multiple sentences—even entire paragraphs—to a single citation. But it's not okay to have a sentence end with a citation, then begin another sentence, and have a citation for the next sentence where information in the first sentence is cited in the second citation. This is not citation overkill—it's a requirement. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I give you an example with the sample, fictional paragraph:

Sentence 1. Sentence 2. Sentence 3. Sentence 4.

Assume that you get all 4 sources from one source. Don't you tell me that you are going to insert every sentence with the same identical footnote?? My understanding is that just one citation at the end of the paragraph will do, provided that all 4 sentences are obtained from the same footnote unless there is a break in sentence 2 or 3 from another source. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#Needless_repetition. If that's the case, then technically the entire article will need a citation for every phrase or half a sentence. I agree that in some cases, multiple citations in one sentence maybe needed especially if the facts are taken from two or more different sources but this is simply not the case. This doesn't sound right. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you state that this is a requirement, please highlight to me the wikipedia policy or guideline that supports your argument, with the exact section to specify that. Otherwise I urge you to revert the double citation in #Ref26. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've completely misunderstood what I wrote. Please read it again. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then this is a non-issue already. I"ll remove the double citation in #26. Mr Tan (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the first column of citations in the first column (the ones I could access, anyways). I don't see any plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues, but the sources don't always support the details in the text. I think it would be a good idea to go through your sources again—it may be the result of moving text around (away from its original inline cites) or something like that. I'll give you some time to fix these issues. When you're done, ping me and I'll come back to finish the review. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated with thanks and hope that the issues are sufficiently addressed or rectified. Please do not hesitate to revert back to me if there are additional outstanding issues. Mr Tan (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#28: It says Ranariddh was accused of "attempting to create a rift inside the floundering royalist party", and it says he was accused of trying to form a new party, but it doesn't say the new party was "royalist" (or am I missing something?)
Accepted. I"ll just remove the word. Mr Tan (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#30: The source said he was acting (as in interim) president, but doesn't seem to say anything about him being vice president. Also, the article mentions he was sued for corruption, but not specifically embezzlement (if the embezzlement charge is from another source, you'll have to duplicate that source here).
Done and added source. Mr Tan (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#31: I don't see where teh source says "Ranariddh sought exile in Malaysia in March 2007"
Done and added source. Mr Tan (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#34: The dates (August 2001 and June 2002) don't appear in the source. Also, I see nothing about "Chakrapong was accused of political bias"
Done and amended. Second sentence was a mistake. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#35: "as foreign tourists opted for land transport options to provincial capitals which were cheaper than air transport" isn't supported by the source—the source speculates: "perhaps due to easier overland travel". I'd just cut this, as it's not really important anyways.
  • I have to go now, but I hope to finish this today. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]




Please, I urge you to go through all the sources in one go, or incrementally within consecutive days if one day is not enough. I believe that going through about 25-30 citations in the article is not too great a challenge, but when I cross-examined this talk page history and your contributions history (sorry for privacy intrusion), you did not come back to work on this GAN or Ranariddh's GAN in spite that you were able to commit to Wikipedia on a daily basis since 17 March at least. You left the comment on 17 March that "....ping me and I'll come back to finish the review." And then, we discussed on fine tuning the 6 citations that you felt required additional attention. On 24 March, you made another statement that there are even more citations that requires additional attention, which to my impression is a deviation from the statement you made on 17 March.
I'm not saying that raising new points from your side is wrong. I appreciate the attention that you give, but I find it hard to accept to be told (or implied) that there are only one set of issues at the beginning and then coming to say that there is an additional chunk yet to be addressed, I don't think that's very professional. I see your contribution history that you are able to visit wikipedia on a daily basis from at least March 17, work on other fields, and not raising any issues on 18, 19, 21, 22 March - you were able to come back and make edits on other areas but there was no activity in this GAN.
You stated that there were more issues to be addressed and stated that, "I'm going to go through the other column of references, probably sometime today." Which are the additional citations that have issues in this article??? Please, if you present to me that let's say there are 20 citations that have issues, missed out 3 or 4 of them and tell me the next round that the 3 or 4 of them needs to be addressed that you have missed out, I can understand. But this is not what had happened. You could have come back to raise the additional citations on 25 March, given your edit history online wikipedia but you chose to sidetrack on other areas. It disappoints me even further, that you have been holding onto Ranariddh's GAN but I still see Ranariddh's GAN empty. I hope you can start providing inputs on issues that needs to be addressed, raise points over consecutive days if one day is simply not enough. I have seen your good work and believe that you can do more to help. You seem to be very attentive on a periodic basis, but not at other periods. I urge you to commit your time and effort fully to address all necessary issues in one go, rather than make promises but not taking sufficient action to address them. Mr Tan (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you have to understand—I feel that I've had to go through every source quite thoroughly as I keep finding sourcing issues. This is quite time-consuming and wearying. The other edits I've made have been between other tasks like washing the dishes and bathing the kids—when I have five minutes to sit down, it's relatively easy to sit down and copyedit a section of Nanking Massacre, but checking sources against text is more demanding and time-consuming. I just haven't had the time to sit down and do it in one go—it's incremental or nothing. It would be a lot easier and faster if you had taken my earlier advice, after I had worked through the first column: that you go through the sources yourself and make sure they're saying what the text is saying. You clearly haven't done that, which makes my job so much more work, as I have to stop with virtually every source to note where the text and source don't match up.
Having said that, this all raises issues about the sourcing that I can't access: how much confidence can I have that what you've sourced to Mehta and Narong are faithful to the sources? After I asked you to check the sources, you made no changes that suggested you had checked the sources—then when I started on the second column, I found issue after issue. My confidence in the quality of sourcing is low enough that I've been considering failing the article over it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I had done copyediting after submitting for GAN. I have to apologise - no humans are born perfect and we invariably miss the mark sometimes. Perhaps, you might have a very strict interpretation of the policies and guidelines - well, if you have a point to make I will address it somehow since I am the main writer of this article. For example, on the point that Ranariddh sought exile in Malaysia in March 2007, perhaps I have missed the mark in citation as I thought that this fact was stated in the Norodom Ranariddh article, which was cited over there. You are technically right to say that all points stated need to be cited and back up. But as you can see, different sources will provide different depths of content coverage. For less important content pertaining to the topic, sometimes editors may summarise the point, and in doing so, details get lost and kinds of relegated to an " implied point". Lets say that in "Source X", it supports two facts expicitly and implied one. You input the 3 points in one sentence. As a rule of thumb, yes--another source would be needed to back up the implied point. But again, what is the line between an "explicit" and "implied" point? There seems to be no clear boundary on this, some have stricter interpretations than others. You see two Muslim ladies for example; one wears a Hijab (headscarf) and the other does not. ....the one who wears the Hijab is pious Muslim but can you say that the other lady is not a "pious" Muslim since she does not wear the Hijab? She does not eat pork, prays five times a day and so on.....
Still, to avoid cluttering overcitations I took it in the spirit of Wikipedia:You_don't_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue#Citing_everything. But if you feel that a certain point still needs to be cited, by all means sound the bell and I will be glad to input it or remove it if otherwise. If I see any issues I will edit them but I definitely can't spot every other mistake or lapse. If you want to check the source of the books, I would suggest either you go to Google Books - some of them have limited previews, or if you want I can provide a phrase. I also admit I might have made some genuine mistakes - it was indeed a learning journey as I wrote this article - I often had to read an average of 3, 4 articles to fully understand one point before penning it down. And that's where interpretation lapses may come up, especially in aspects of governance.
If you feel that let's say for example, for Norodom Ranariddh's GAN you can't commit for an extended period of time due to real life issues, I would suggest you withdraw yourself as a reviewer and let other fellow colleagues do it. But you have put up your name in the Review Page, and definitely when other GA reviewers look through it they would have the impression that it is under review but the point is nothing has been done as yet. The problem that I see now is that you feel there is a lot of work to be done but you can't meet the time. I don't think that is very right because you have stated your commitment but there was no progress. If you are away from Wikipedia like I sometimes do, I can emphatise and forgive. I do not ask you to commit anymore real-life time to wikipedia than you can deliver. But you sidetracked your efforts to other topics in Wikipedia, within whatever time that you dedicated to wikipedia, and that upsets me as you found issues here but never provide sufficient attention. And coming back to Chakrapong, you have reached point #Ref 35 and if you would like to, you can go through the rest. The finishing line is definitely not far.
Let just do things this way....finish whatever other Wikipedia editing projects you have, and after that, make this GAN and Ranariddh's GAN (if you would like to do so) as your number one priority. Say for example, there are 100 sources that you want to check or something like that, and you can finish 20 or so per day. Do 20 source check on Day 1, next 20 on Day 2 and the third 20 on Day 3. The number is just an example. Can that be done? Let me know.... Mr Tan (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Christ—look, I'm simply not going to waste my time reading through another wall of text like this. If you have a point to make, find a better way to make it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, that's not very polite of you. I am trying to reason out things with you but that's not civil behaviour. If you are unhappy with reviewing these two articles then please withdraw yourself from the process and I will find another reviewer to do it. Mr Tan (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly call the walls of text you've thrown at me "civil"—nor is asking for another reviewer after you've worn the current one out. If you're unsatisfied with the amount of time this review is taking you should consider double-checking your sources before submitting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


You misconstrued my comments too far. I made a suggestion, and there is no compulsion for you to follow through so strictly. What I see is that you are able to log onto Wikipedia everyday, but you cannot dedicate a portion of the time everyday on an incremental basis to improvements? To be honest participating in a review, or even making any edits is a matter of heart and passion and not a "chore". Indeed, if you feel that it is a chore you should really excuse yourself from the review altogether. Mr Tan (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]



I noticed this: "The problem that I see now is that you feel there is a lot of work to be done but you can't meet the time."—no, the problem is not that I don't have the time, the problem is that there are so many issues with the sourcing of the article that it's taking an unusually long amount of time. I read a statement, and then I check the source to see if it's there. If I see it right away, I move on. If I don't see it right away, then I have to spend time combing through the source to find what's supposed to be there—and surprisingly often it's not there at all. Do you not understand how time-consuming that is? If I did it in one go, it'd take a couple of hours. If you'd simply done what I'd asked and double-checked yourself (which you don't seem to be willing to do), then I could probably zip through the article and simply pass it. You've made the job far more work than it should be. Another GA I took on at the same time passed days ago because there were hardly any sourcing issues.Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's only a couple more sources to review if you feel you can commit to it. Anyway, I am double checking on my side as well as you have requested. Mr Tan (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly considering simply failing it. The sourcing issues are far beyond what I would have expected. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask what are your expectations of this article? Furthermore, I have been actively engaging in making corrections to the feedback that you have made. Whatever points that you have raised in the past I have addressed all, and you seem to be satisfied with them.
Please, I urge you to cool down and let's finish this review at the very least. I can't stop you from a quick fail if you insist, but I don't think this is quite in line with Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Mr Tan (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fail—this is a BLP—one about a controversial politician—and there have been far too many issues with the sources. Despite calls for the nominator to double-check the sources, no changes have been made except at my direct prompting, and no changes have been made with regards to sources I have been unable to access. Given that there have been issues with over half of the sources I have checked, I have no confidence that the paper sources were used any more scrupulously. BLPs are held to a higher standard of sourcing than other kinds of articles—even when not GAs—for reasons stated at WP:BLP. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the next nomination, I suggest the nominator go through the sources again—including the offline ones—and demonstrate that every effort has been made to ensure text–source integrity. This is especially important in a Biography of a Living Person, and even more so when that person is involved in politics and controversy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Look, which are the paper sources that you want to check? I have stated that I am willing to provide the phrases upon request. Furthermore, the three books stated are viewable via Google Books as I have stated.
I urge that you withdraw the "Fail" declaration. You are obviously starting to assume bad faith and not being rational. I will get a second opinion if otherwise. Mr Tan (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is inadequate, especially for a BLP, as I've already stated. It's your job now to fix the issues---which includes proactively working through all the sources to ensure text-source integrity---and then you're free to renominate. You should also be careful about accusing people of bad faith. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norodom_Chakrapong/GA1&oldid=653648980"