2017–2020 Thai temple fraud investigations has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 19, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from 2017–2020 Thai temple fraud investigations appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 July 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although the six monastics arrested and kept in a prison would normally be described in English as being detained, this distinction in Thai language between detained and imprisoned, before and after a trial respectively, does not exist. In Thai sources, the monks arrested in the fraud investigations are therefore described as imprisoned. I haven't found any evidence of any better treatment than prisoners, so maybe we should just follow the Thai. What do you think?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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.
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?
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.
Thai law states ...?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Smaller copy-editing suggestions follow.
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.
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.
Yes: the article has been careful to be even-handed in its coverage.
Yes.
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?
2017–2020 Thai temple fraud investigations has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 19, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from 2017–2020 Thai temple fraud investigations appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 July 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although the six monastics arrested and kept in a prison would normally be described in English as being detained, this distinction in Thai language between detained and imprisoned, before and after a trial respectively, does not exist. In Thai sources, the monks arrested in the fraud investigations are therefore described as imprisoned. I haven't found any evidence of any better treatment than prisoners, so maybe we should just follow the Thai. What do you think?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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.
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?
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.
Thai law states ...?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Smaller copy-editing suggestions follow.
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.
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.
Yes: the article has been careful to be even-handed in its coverage.
Yes.
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?