GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 16:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I'll be reviewing this article.

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments/question:[edit]

lead

infobox

body

other[edit]

I will put this review onhold for a week, there are a lot of issues that should be addressed. Artem.G (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by Karto1[edit]

lead

  • Added government-appointed roles

infobox

  • The two sections have been removed from infobox.

body

other

  • Added one controversy/criticism of Nagavajara's work under Work and influences/German and comparative literature: His work is not without controversies. In August 1998, during the last seminar in the series for this TRF-funded project, poets took an exception to what he presented as "representative Thai poetry" which include lyrics from modern pop songs but not highly-regarded modern classics. In his interview with the Bangkok Post, he explained that "The protest by the poets at last August's seminar was brief, and had to do with a misunderstanding concerning the concept of value in poetry."

Thanks for the updates! I will re-read the article today or tomorrow, and will resume my review. Artem.G (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

final thoughts[edit]

I re-read the article, and in my opinion it got much better. A few minor comments, most of them aren't mandatory for GA review, just a thoughts of how to make that article better.

And a remark for clarity - I can't read Thai, so i can't verify all Thai sources, though I tried to google-translate some of them.

Other that these minor issues, i see no problems. I'll wait for response, and then make a decision. Artem.G (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G, Karto1, and U6181299: Thanks so much for your hard work. We cannot read German/French and rely on machine translation for our work on this article too. I spent hours searching for a free image for this article but cannot find one at this point. --Taweetham (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I was almost sure that such policy can be in place, but couldn't find one. Artem.G (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all the issues and comments addressed, I think that article is a GA now. Everything is sourced, written in accordance to MoS, no edit wars present or past, no images (so no copyright violations), and the article is focused and covers all major aspect. Congratulations to all the editors involved! Artem.G (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]