Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bhumibol Adulyadej/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:09, 26 July 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Rlevse, WikiProject Thailand

I am nominating this featured article for review because these comments have not been responded to on the talk page for over a week. Hopefully they will get a wider audience here. I have some issues with the neutrality of the article in certain places, as well as its completeness in regards to the last 3-5 years and in the spots referred to below.

First, the article makes several claims about the king’s alleged public popularity with Thais: One wonder’s what the basis for these claims is. Independently-conducted, scentific public opinon polls? The say-so of newspaper staff writers? The article should focus on clearer, narrower, more verifiable claims, rather than trite and vague haigiography. In fact, buried in the text of the article is a source that disputes the idea that the king is universally adored. The body of the article should devote some space to a serious decision of the king’s approval rating, with some focus on the how it has been measured (if it has been at all). What it should not do is take sides early and often.
 * “Publicly acclaimed "the Great"”
 * “Bhumibol is highly revered by the public”
 * “Bhumibol retains enormous powers, partly because of his immense popularity”
 * “Although Bhumibol is held in great respect by many Thais, he is also protected by lèse majesté laws”

Second, lèse majesté.
 * “He has been accused of interfering in politics, although this would be unconstitutional of him and accusers are liable to be charged with lèse majesté.” My issue with this sentence is that it mixes the issues sufficiently to editorialize. First, “although” implies a counterpoint—but the fact that it would be unconstitutional in no way contradicts the accusation. It would be more accurate to say: “he has been accused of unconstituitonaly interferering with politics.” Second, lèse majesté is a national criminal law only. It may be true that those who state this accusation in Thailand may be charged, but to wedge this into this part of the intro only confuses the issue.
 * Standing to bring a lèse majesté claim. The article says “anyone”. Anyone in the world? Any Thai citizen? At the very least it should say “anyone else” because the king is the one person we no cannot bring a claim.
 * An offhand comment by the king at a birthday speech five years ago is featured in the intro rather than summarizing the overall position of the king towards the law. This birthday speech should go in the body of the article, or even a footnote. It is not intro material. Has he tried to get it repealed? Has he tried to grant clemency? Has to spoken out against high profile cases? Etc. Otherwise, the article as it is currently written constitutes overemphasis.

The following sections lack citations:
 * Thanom Kittikachorn era
 * The key paragraph in the “Crisis of 1992” section
 * Several paragraphs in the “Crisis of 2005–2006 and the September 2006 coup”
 * Much of the history of royal projects section, including a few of the examples.
 * Much of the 60th anniversary section
 * The private life section, in particular about the Enligh language books

Other issues:
 * “He is seen as so important by the Thai people that his ill-health has affected the financial markets.” There are several things wrong with stating this as an objective fact rather than subjective conjecture. First, financial markets are not a public opinion poll. Most Thais own no stock whatsoever. Second, it is very hard to know why stock markets move the way they do. Correlation is a fact; causation is a guess. Statements like these belong on quack finance shows like “Mad Money”, not the lead of featured articles.
 * “Bhumibol switched over his field of study to law and political science in order to prepare himself more effectively for his new position as ruler.” What I take issue with is the attribution of internal motivation. Examples of a objecitvely neutral statements would be that he stated this, someone else stated this, etc.
 * The intro states: “He has also used his influence to stop military coups, including attempts in 1981 and 1985.” The basis for these claims is that the king did not endorse these two particular military coups and they did not succeed. However, a claim of causation should be attributed and cited to a source. Preferably, unless all the commentators are in agreement that the situation is so simple, one would want to see some discussion of the circumstances of the coup and any other factors at play.
 * In both the intro and the body the article claims the king played a “key role” in the transition to democracy. However, it waffles on providing any specific details that would allow one to assess this claim. The relevant paragraph in the body of the article contains no citations. That he appeared on TV with the two parties is a fact. However, that this event “made a strong impression on the nation, and led to Suchinda's resignation soon afterwards” is an opinion. It should be attributed and cited, not passed off as objective fact without references. Without more details and sources, it would appear the intro has overclaimed the king’s role.

Finally, the aritcle is in need of updating on the King’s role in Thai politics since 2006, especially since 2008. Savidan 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist I am the one who got this to FA and I gave up trying to maintain this long ago. It's another victim of POV warriors who care more about their POV than the quality of the article. Sad.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, neutrality, comprehensiveness.  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll '')  02:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If Rlevse thinks the article should be delisted, I cannot disagree. Savidan 14:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist, unfortunately, due to concerns as laid out above, as well as referencing issues, unsourced paragraphs. -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist: criterion three issues are numerous:
 * File:King Rama IX Signature.svg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP and incorrectly licensed.
 * File:Mom Sangwal and children.JPG - Needs a verifiable source.
 * File:Bhumbol and Sirikit.jpg - Link to the file itself tells us nothing about copyright status.
 * File:Bhumbol coronation 1.jpg - What is the PD status in the US?
 * File:Thanom Kittikachorn.jpg - Image not at link provided; how can we verify copyright status?
 * File:Black May Thailand.jpg - No author or copyright information (NFCC#10A), nonsense rationale (how does an image of Bhumibol seated depict him "exercising his political power"?) (NFCC#10C), what significant contribution is being made (NFCC#8)?
 * File:Eisenhower Bhumibol.jpg - Source does not contain sufficient information to verify copyright (Who is the author? When/where was it first published?)
 * File:Royal Flag of King Rama IX.svg - Dead "based on" file; incorrect licensing (this is a derivative work, not "own work")
 * Numerous MOS:CAPTION issues. Эlcobbola  talk 19:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.