Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bhumibol Adulyadej/archive1: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===[[Bhumibol Adulyadej]]=== |
===[[Bhumibol Adulyadej]]=== |
||
*'''Comment'''. I disagree in any cases to put so many details about Thai politics on this article. I think, the autors should not even talk much in this article about him as a politician, but rather as a person. Politics can be discussed in more details in the other articles. On the other hand something should be mentioned anywayin order to enable links to other articles, so that people can easily find them. |
*'''Comment''' - from Khompat. I disagree in any cases to put so many details about Thai politics on this article. I think, the autors should not even talk much in this article about him as a politician, but rather as a person. Politics can be discussed in more details in the other articles. On the other hand something should be mentioned anywayin order to enable links to other articles, so that people can easily find them. |
||
Current GA on the present King of Thailand, the longest reigning monarch in Thai history.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
Current GA on the present King of Thailand, the longest reigning monarch in Thai history.[[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:22, 16 August 2006
- Comment - from Khompat. I disagree in any cases to put so many details about Thai politics on this article. I think, the autors should not even talk much in this article about him as a politician, but rather as a person. Politics can be discussed in more details in the other articles. On the other hand something should be mentioned anywayin order to enable links to other articles, so that people can easily find them.
Current GA on the present King of Thailand, the longest reigning monarch in Thai history.Rlevse 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Minor ObjectSupport - Expand the lead to at least three paragraphs please. Fieari 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)- Comment I have expanded the lead. Thanks for the input. Rlevse 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me now. Impressive work... you've done your homework! It looks to me like you've submitted an FA right out of the gate. Nice job. Fieari 18:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your positive comments. Rlevse 18:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have expanded the lead. Thanks for the input. Rlevse 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support Excellent biography. --JohnDBuell 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support, good article, well done. :) --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 07:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Why is there no photograph of what he looks like now? The most recent one looks like it's a couple of decades old (though the photograph itself was taken in 2006). There should be plenty of available images of an important world leader like him, no? -Silence 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Response Actually no. The Thai government is very protective of the King's public image. For example, the Thai currency, stamps, etc still uses images that are probably 40-50 years old. Finding a modern image that is not copyrighted and suitable for wikipedia use is very difficult, but I shall keep looking for one. All the recent ones I've found in the past are from news agencies and copyrighted. Rlevse 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think that a fair-use image would be acceptable here. Although we should avoid fair use whenever possible, in some cases it is necessary, even in Featured Articles, to make use of them when something is important to depict and an appropriate free-use image is unavailable. For example, if we didn't have any free-use images of George W. Bush from the last few years, it would be appropriate to use a fair-use one because of his importance as a public figure; the greater time-difference for Bhumibol (the most recent depiction of him we have, at the top of the page, looks at least 30 years old, considering that he's about 80 years old now) renders it even more important. Besides, information (both textual and pictorial) that is harder to come by is that much more important to include; people come here to learn things they can't find out from more conventional print sources. -Silence 14:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I'll pick one, come up with a FU rationale as best I can. Feel free to add to the FU rationale, I'm not that good at that part.Rlevse 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)...Done, please review it. Rlevse 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think that a fair-use image would be acceptable here. Although we should avoid fair use whenever possible, in some cases it is necessary, even in Featured Articles, to make use of them when something is important to depict and an appropriate free-use image is unavailable. For example, if we didn't have any free-use images of George W. Bush from the last few years, it would be appropriate to use a fair-use one because of his importance as a public figure; the greater time-difference for Bhumibol (the most recent depiction of him we have, at the top of the page, looks at least 30 years old, considering that he's about 80 years old now) renders it even more important. Besides, information (both textual and pictorial) that is harder to come by is that much more important to include; people come here to learn things they can't find out from more conventional print sources. -Silence 14:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Response Actually no. The Thai government is very protective of the King's public image. For example, the Thai currency, stamps, etc still uses images that are probably 40-50 years old. Finding a modern image that is not copyrighted and suitable for wikipedia use is very difficult, but I shall keep looking for one. All the recent ones I've found in the past are from news agencies and copyrighted. Rlevse 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The copyright holder is noted as the BBC, but the lower right hand corner of the photo shows "AP". So is it AP or BBC? Patiwat 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good catch, it should be AP. I changed the image info.Rlevse 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't know what the manual of style says, but should the article mention by its name Bhumibol or using the title King Bhumibol? CG 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Response Per MOS as I read it and seeing other articles, King does not go in the title and should not open the article, but it may be discussed in the article. Ex, in the article on Elizabeth II, it refers to her as Elizabeth in the text and in George VI it refers to him as George VI in the body. It also says there is much controversy on this. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. Rlevse 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)