Talk:2017–2020 Thai temple fraud investigations/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Alarichall (talk · contribs) 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm planning to review this article. More to follow. Alarichall (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well written:

 * the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The article meets these criteria. I have some suggestions, though, which editors might wish to pursue.

The article often uses the noun 'monastic'. This does exist in English as a synonym for 'monk', but in my experience it isn't commonly used (unlike the adjective 'monastic', which is a normal word). So I suggest replacing it with 'monk'. (I've suggested this several times in the notes below, but gave up after a while, so you could do a search and replace.) But maybe in a Thai context the noun 'monastic' has a subtly different meaning from 'monk'? If so, the article might need to explain this.
 * . No, the meaning is the same. However, many Christians and some well-informed Buddhists these days use monastic instead of friar or monk due to the word being sex-neutral. I understand, however, that this usage may not be widely known outside of religious circles. So I will replace with monks, since the article does not deal with Thai nuns.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Partly because the names of the arrested were not included, I found it a bit hard to keep track of who was being arrested, and how much overlap there was between people accused in different investigations. Possibly there's nothing that can be done about this due to either the names not being known or due to avoiding libel. Perhaps once trials have taken place, it might be possible to make this clear? Is it possible to say when the trials are to be held and how many are being tried?
 * . I will try to find some updates. And yes, had to cut out some names to uphold Wikipedia's CRIME policy.--  Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No trials have been held yet. Reporting has been seriously diminished due to the cave incident, which has drawn all attention from the media. Several people have been detained for two months now without due trial.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will add more names of some public figures. I haven't added the names of the NOB directors yet.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added names. I've now added names of all public figures. Later on, I will start adding names of anyone who has been found innocent or guilty in trial.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The use of explanatory note 1 seemed to me a bit unhelpful: personally I think that that text could be integrated into the main text.
 * You mean the note with the text Thai law states ...?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That's right. One possible alternative phrasing in the main text might be: 'Preceding that decision, on 25 May, Phra Prom Dilok, as well as the three deputy abbots, were arrested, defrocked, and held in custody. (Thai law states that monks cannot be jailed, therefore any monk taken into custody must be defrocked if denied release on bail, even before guilt is determined.)' Thanks for responding to the other suggestions too! Alarichall (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Smaller copy-editing suggestions follow.


 * 'Four civilians and one monastic' => 'Four civilians and one monk'?
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'the same ten officers': this is a bit confusing, because the second paragraph of the section said 'five to ten government officers'. It now sounds like there were definitely ten. Clarify?
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Checked the most recent sources on this.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'another three to four officers': it seems a bit odd that the precise number isn't known, but I guess if it was you'd have said! Still, maybe worth checking if this has been clarified?
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . The fourth one was the soldier, but he didn't work for the NOB directly.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'The highest-ranking officers were two former directors' => 'The highest-ranking officers were two former NOB directors'?
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'A high-standing soldier was also implicated, who had been deployed without contract as a bodyguard at the State Audit Office' => 'A high-ranking soldier, who had been deployed without contract as a bodyguard at the State Audit Office, was also implicated'
 * Thank you. .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'ten temples had had their budget cut off in the same manner': since this is a new section, it would be helpful to say 'in the same manner as...'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'These eight monastics' => 'These eight monks'?
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'his most serious charge was that of unauthorized use of the royal seal, filed in 2017' => 'the most serious charge against him, filed in 2017, was unauthorized use of the royal seal'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'expressed surprise at the coinciding arrest' => 'expressed surprise that this arrest happened at the same time as the arrest of the four monks'
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'had held nationwide protests of monastics against the junta before' => 'had previously held nationwide protests by monks against the junta'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'the four prominent monastics' => 'the four prominent monks'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'the same network of civil servants, monastics, and assistant laypeople' => 'the same network of civil servants, monks, and assistant laypeople'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'the high-standing soldier implicated earlier' => 'the high-ranking soldier implicated earlier'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'was on civil servants, not monastics' => 'was on civil servants, not monks'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'the NOB announced they would try to find good examples of temples that had good financial procedures' => 'the NOB announced they would try to find examples of temples that had good financial procedures'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'the Federation argued that the NOB overstepped its boundaries of jurisdiction' => 'the Federation argued that the NOB had overstepped its boundaries of jurisdiction' (or 'the Federation argued that the NOB acted beyond its jurisdiction'
 * ✅. I used the latter.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'increase in criticism on social networks, questioning whether this was appropriate for monks': could this be made clearer? Does it refer to social media networks specifically? And it's not entirely clear what 'this' refers to. '... questioning whether it was appropriate for monks to comment on political issues'?
 * Clarified. .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'The arrests have been widely regarded by journalists and news analysts as unprecedented and a critical blow to the faith of Thai Buddhist devotees. Representatives of the Thai monastic community responded to the arrests dumbfounded and saddened.' Could this sentence be integrated into one or both of the following subsections? I don't mind if not though: it works fine as it is.
 * ✅. I have moved the second sentence to the subsection on domestic responses. The first sentence applies to both domestic and international responses.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'the investigations and subsequent arrests were' => 'the investigations and subsequent arrests represented'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'based on just being accused of the crimes alone' => 'solely on the basis that they had been accused of the crimes'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'if those had any guilt at all': it's not 100% clear what 'those' refers back to. '(if indeed the monks were guilty at all)'?
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'calling upon tens of thousands of Thai administrative monks to no longer communicate with them' => 'calling upon tens of thousands of Thai administrative monks to suspend communications with them'
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research:

 * it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * it contains no original research; and
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

My main limitation as a reviewer here is that I don't know Thai. That said, where I've looked at media cited in English, the handling is sound, so I see no reason to worry about the representation of the Thai material. The formatting of the citations is clean.

Broad in its coverage:

 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Obviously this is a current topic and to keep the article at GA status, it will be important to keep it up to date. In particular, it will be important to add trial dates and coverage of trial outcomes. But at the moment its breadth seems suitable.
 * Okay.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Yes: the article has been careful to be even-handed in its coverage.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Yes.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Yes. It might be nice to have pictures of some of the accused later if (a) they are available and (b) they are consistent with how we handle biographies of living persons. But at the moment it seems prudent that they are not present. A generic picture of some monks might be nice?
 * Done.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)