Talk:Prime Minister of Laos/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 15:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will be looking into this. It's great to see work being put into this quite underserved topic. The article does seem quite short, and oddly lists a couple of sources that are never used. It is also heavily reliant on a single source for much of its text. Still, I think it not a quick fail, and so is worth a closer look. On sourcing, it is not necessary to put the same source after every consecutive sentence that uses it, just place the source at the end of the relevant text/paragraph. It seems odd the text mentions the pre-communist PMs but that they are absent from the table. The article could use a few more pictures if available, such as PMs in action, or their residence. Will look more over the next day or two. CMD (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Hatnote needs to be adjusted, the article is not about the "current Prime Minister", but the "position of Prime Minister under the Lao People's Democratic Republic" or similar.
The title "chairman of the Council of Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic" doesn't appear in the article body, although the shorter "Chairman of the Council of Government" (different capitalisation for Chairman) does. Why the difference?

History

"With the Prime Minister, The First Government and prime minister reported their activities to the SPA", not sure what this is saying.
"The Prime Minister's power was reduced, and the president's was increased". Odd to see this as the president has not been discussed before. Is there a reason capitalisation differs between the two positions? (MOS:JOBTITLES suggests both should be lower case.)
The quotes in the last paragraph should be better attributed. I'm not convinced the Bui 2019 source is that reliable, although aside from the quotes it supports mostly quite banal information so that should be okay.

Qualifications and selection

The first paragraph here is almost all based on primary sources, some secondary sources should also be provided to back up the relevance of the primary sources, especially when reading between lines such as when saying "The Law on Government is silent...".
The second paragraph oddly jumps over 1991 to 1998. That's not a very long period of time, and presumably there weren't a lot of term holders during that time.
This section lacks any information about the mechanism of selection.

Duties and rights

As mentioned above, this extensive section comes from one single source. Furthermore, this source is mostly a reading of various texts, rather than an analysis, and so seems almost a primary source in some respects. This is quite a limited basis for such a significant portion of the article. It also causes some issues, for example there is good attention here to not editorialise, but this means there is a lack of connection between much of the text and the position of prime minister. It's not clear what much of the Government subsection has to do with the prime minister.

Officeholders and Living former Prime Ministers

These sections are currently unsourced.

Broadness

This article is currently quite short, with a limited number of sections. There are currently GA President articles, President of Belarus and President of Croatia. There's no need to match these exactly, but they provide examples as to the sorts of other topics that could be covered. Former FAs include Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, President of Ireland, and President of the United States. On sources, while this is a more difficult country to find sources on that many, there are some. Even if they do not cover the topic in detail, they can support the existing more comprehensive sources already here, Eg. [1][2]. Overall the writing is good, so I hope to see this topic continue to be fleshed out and enhanced going forward. Best, CMD (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Are you fucking kidding me?

I have read both those books - they don't say anything that is not said in this article.
Laos does not have the same constitutional history as the US or Britain, that is over 200 years of history.
This article is more referenced and longer than the President of Belarus article and the Prime Minister of Vietnam article. Bloody hell!
Have you literally decided that a third party source is a primary source all by yourself?
Note that the Czech president article is referenced by Czech sources. I have literally looked and found all the English sources available on the Prime Minister of Laos. There are none more unless I learn how to read, write and speak Laotian!

You're either dumb as a brick or lazy. You even managed to close it before asking me for any comments... Bloody hell!

Either reopen this review or I will be renominating it. Stupidity knows no bounds! --Ruling party (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The worst thing is that I've made waited months for a review, and when I first get it I get a person that a) doesn't bother to ask the nominator in question before pushing a verdict and b) a guy that doesn't know crap about what he is writing about. --Ruling party (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two months is generally a short time to wait for a GA review. You're welcome to ask for a second opinion on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. CMD (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I want an apology from you... --Ruling party (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]