Wikipedia:Peer review/Global Buddhist Network/archive1

Global Buddhist Network
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been worked on a lot since it was created and first assessed. The subject was covered a lot in Thai news in 2016. It would like to assess it on style, clarity of contents and neutrality. I also believe it should be reassessed for quality.

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Initiating peer review on section by section basis:


 * Lead section
 * The text in the lead section is appropriate to the article. The lead section is expected to be a summary of the main body of the article with all of the references fully developed in the body of the main article. In this case, you appear to have many cites in the lead section which is not expected if your eventual goal is to get the article out of Start-Stub status and get it to a rated class. The cited material which is not in the main body of the article which is in the lead section needs to be fully developed in the main body of the article. After all that material is fully developed in the main body of the article, then you can remove the cited footnotes from the lead section since they will already have been in the main body of the article. Lead sections generally are easier for readers and editors to review as an introduction when the cites are removed.
 * Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Separately, the infobox here could use an image of the founder if one is available on WikiCommons.
 * The founder is not specified in any secondary source that I know of, but the abbot of the temple could be depicted. But he is not mentioned in the article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 1 Founding
 * State the founding year in the very first sentence here. No need to leave it for the second or third sentence in this section. I also suggest as an option to retitle this section as "Background", and to include a short mention of the Thai junta crackdown as an important part of the historical background at the start of this article.
 * already fixed this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 2 Programming and availability
 * Move a description of the Thai junta crackdown up to the Foundation/Background section above. Most readers will not know anything about it and should be informed about it at the very start of the article.
 * Fixed by Wikiman5676!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 3 Teaching about Steve Jobs
 * This is an interesting part of Steve Jobs biography not know to many, similar to many people not knowing that Richard Gere is a practicing Buddhist. Some short mention in one or two sentences should introduce Steve Jobs and his friend being interested in Buddhism and how he sustained this interest. You can find some reliable sources for this in the Wikipedia article for Steve Jobs. Am image of Jobs in context here might be useful. If this is a "Celebrity relations" section, then that should be the name of this section. If this was a genuine controversy, then the section title might be called "Steve Jobs controversy" if accurate.
 * Changed section title, although I'm in doubt whether it agrees with WP:WTW. I have also added a part on Steve Jobs interest in Buddhism. As for the "friend", sources do not say anything about him except he is a senior software engineer working for Apple, and his name is Tony Tseung. The problem, you see, with most coverage of Wat Phra Dhammakaya is that it is focused on the sensational, and doesn't go that deep. (And in the case of major outlets cited like Wall Street Journal there are just too many language barriers to get deep coverage.)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 4 Shut down
 * It is my assumption that you are referring to section 1.6 of that article titled: "Suppression under junta (2014–2017)". This material will be unknown to most readers outside of your country and deserves one or two extra sentences of introduction in this section at a minimum. As an option which might help, the section title should not avoid naming the controversy and possibly simply name it: "The Klongchan controversy".
 * I believe this has been done now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 5 Revival in online format
 * Online blogs and cable channels usually keep visitor logs and demographics to discuss traffic and usage levels. This information is not present in this section and would be useful to include if you have reliable sources.
 * I have added an Alexa ranking, although I am not certain it means that much. Do you have any other tips what other websites keep track records? I know there is software for that, but I am not sure how a report from such software could be referenced.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That should get the article improvement process to some sort of start and to move the article toward regular article status. Good editing. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I will work on this as soon as we finish the GA review of your article. Meanwhile,, if you have time for this, feel free to start and work with this advice. I will be ready with the GA review within seven days, probably.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Neat, regarding number 4 I'd like to point out that the wikilink was put in b4 the Wat Phra Dhammakaya page was split. There is a section on "History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya" that explains the events in more detail. I will change the wikilink and work on a few of the suggestions. Wikiman5676 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, much appreciated, because I know you are busy with your new job.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've finished making several changes, feel free to provide further feedback or make some improvements Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am continuing with using this feedback now. I have made a few more significant changes in the structure of the article. I have specified details per section above. , if you could spare a few moments to check the progress here, and see if you have any more advice? , can we get a logo of the channel on here, somehow?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ill look for one later, shouldn't be too difficult to find and usage of logos for wikipedia images is well within the parameters for fair use. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! The article looks a lot better with the logo.
 * By the way, I had thought of adding some more context on the Thai junta censoring other television stations as well, but I am in doubt whether it would be over the top.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it would be okay. Its a trend in Thailand right now and would give the reader some background i suppose. Just my thoughts on it. Wikiman5676 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will mention some of these events briefly. What is there to mention? I have found news on the closing down of Peace TV and Voice TV, and the charges laid against Pravit Rojanaphruk of Khao Sod English. And oh dear, there is so much news worldwide about the last one—it will probably on the agenda of the UN next time Prayuth goes there.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know what you guys think.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)