Talk:Lèse-majesté in Thailand/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 05:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parking this here for the review. --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are frequent errors of grammar throughout the article. The article is in need of thorough copy-editing. For example, the first paragraph of the lede: Lèse majesté[a] in Thailand is criminalized by Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code. It is illegal to defame, insult, or threaten the king, queen, heir-apparent, heir-presumptive, or regent. Modern Thai lèse-majesté law has been on the statute books since 1908; "insult" was criminalized and lèse majesté was made a crime against national security in 1957. The punishment, last strengthened in 1976, making Thailand the only constitutional monarchy to do so since World War II, is three to fifteen years' imprisonment per count and has been described as the "world's harshest lèse majesté law"[1] and "possibly the strictest criminal-defamation law anywhere".[2] According to social scientist Michael Connors, its enforcement "has been in the interest of the palace." Could be better rendered as: Lèse majesté[a] in Thailand refers to actions, criminalized in law, which defame, insult, or threaten the country's king, queen, heir-apparent, heir-presumptive, or regent. Thailand's modern law of lèse-majesté has existed since 1908. Thailand is the only constitutional monarchy since World War II to have strengthened laws prohibiting defamation of the crown, with penalties of three to 15 years imprisonment per offence under Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code. The country is considered to have the "strictest criminal-defamation law anywhere."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article is well supported, but many of the references are incomplete. I stopped counting at 20 incomplete references (no date, no title, link only, text only in Thai).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Generally good, the US Embassy statement on Joe Gordon via Facebook, the use of a graphic via Flikr and Fox News are not ideal sourcing, but given the extent of all teh other sourcing this small amount is acceptable.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig detects problems, some of this is due to direct quotes from the law, however there are some clear close paraphrasing issues. These sentences: "Lèse majesté remains the most potent political charge in Thailand. The charges went up in times of political upheaval" are essentially copied from in the article "Ramification and Re-Sacralization of the Lese Majesty Law in Thailand" by Streckfuss and Preechasilpakul: "Lese majesty as a criminal charge, as the most potent political charge in Thailand, has remained not only undiminished, but, as a few months ago indicate, shows signs of renewed vitality. While in many other ways Thailand seems to have become democratic, the lese majesty law exerts a kind of supra-natural hold on society. The frequency of the charge flares up in times of political upheaval." Article: "Lèse-majesté complaints can be filed by any person against anyone else, and they must always be formally investigated." BBC: "Lese-majeste complaints can be filed by anyone, against anyone, and they must always be formally investigated by the police."
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think there is a problem with the structure of the article - my impression is that it should deal with history first, then examine the law in its contemporary form and finally deal with the contentious nature (opposition, defence to the law). At present the list of notable cases seems very indiscriminate... especially as those ordered to be executed in the 1960s are not on the list, but someone who turned the light off above a princess during a flight is.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Notable cases list – far too indiscriminate, needs clear criteria for inclusion.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	While not necessary for GA status, alt-text should be added for accessibility.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The execution order illustrated in the lead - is it confirmed the executions were carried out? If so, this should be incorporated into the caption.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a very important article and no doubt given the present situation in Thailand will draw a lot of attention, so efforts to get this to GA status are very welcome. However, three stand out problems lead to automatic failure: extensive copy-editing needed, completion of full referencing, removal of material which is close paraphrasing. Furthermore, the structure of the article could be improved and the notable cases list needs clear criteria for inclusion.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: Thank you for assessing this article after a long wait. However, may I take a time to fix the issues you mention? Or do you think I have to nominate it again (after the fix.)? --Horus (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horus I think it's best to renominate once it has been reworked; happy to look over it again before renomination, just ping me.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.