Talk:Coronation of the Thai monarch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 22:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be starting this review - the article is pretty long but comments should be posted within a few days. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Lead short for length of article
• Lead written well
• Article appears to be written well, but at times slips into addressing the reader and seems to apply tense based on when the information was added (I've done some clean-up, but would appreciate if the editor also checked through it, too)
• Good use of wikilinks for specific terms throughout
  • with no wikilink to "Indraphisek", a good explanation has been provided
• The "Of note was a letter to the editor ..." sentence could be phrased better; I also don't find a need for the letter or President wikilinks
• In Modern Coronations, "apex" is an unusual term in the context, perhaps use 'head' or 'forefront'?
• Though histories customarily come first, it uses certain terms (e.g. the "state progress by land and water") that are only explained later. Perhaps such terms can be briefly explained or given a note linking to further down the article.
• Thai House of Reps should probably just be linked to House of Reps
• King Rama IX is referred to as both Rama IX and King Bhumibol, should probably be left as one or the other for clarity
• I've added and removed a few "the"s and "to"s where appropriate.
• Added a clarify tag to a mention of simply "Tuesday" in place of a contextualized date
• "Scene of the ceremonies" is quite a romantic header, perhaps "Location" could be used, as its more encyclopedic
• "bedroom" also does not need a wikilink
• The Purification Bath section uses "the auspicious time" as a time referent, but this also isn't clear. When does this take place? E.g. At a set time, or after certain things have happened, or when monks announce it?
  • Later in this section, what is "artillery" referring to specifically? The grammar of this fragment doesn't work, and without understanding what artillery is meant to be, this can't be fixed.
• Complete dialogues of the different figures seems a little excessive; perhaps the main elements can be summarized and the whole dialogue can go in a note? Especially with the action lines, this reads as a script. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be scripts.
• Throne does not need a wikilink.
• There's a few more sections to read through, but I think I can leave this list with you and hope that similar edits may be applied to the rest of the article before I get to it
• Fail

Coverage

• Lead gives fairly good overview, could have more coverage on notable coronations
• I'm not sure what the second paragraph of Symbolism has to do with symbolism, looks more like general history
• Concise and summative while covering everything that one expects to be included
• Maybe could use a bit more detail about the situation mentioned in sentence "Nevertheless, the king tried to restore some of the old rites when he invited..."; why did he invite them, e.g.
• In the Early Bangkok section, what about European coronations influenced the Thai ones from Rama IV?
• (Also Style) There's much more symbolism mentioned in later sections, perhaps the Symbolism section overall could be dissolved, with the info moved into a different appropriate section. Given its brevity, that 1/3 seems unrelated, and much more symbolism info throughout, it doesn't add anything to the article and is to its detriment in terms of organization.
• Needs attention - I've given the rest a glance but will check this in more detail with style

Illustration

• Images look good, but is it not possible to move the first image in Anointing up a paragraph, to let the quote format better?
• Maybe don't need two images in Aftermath.
• These images are all large, can some not be left at thumbnail size?
• good and complete coronation table
• Needs attention

Verifiability

• Very good looking sources, GF on the ones in Thai
• There are a few things uncited:
  • Sentence starting "During the royal coronation audience of HM King Vajiralongkorn on 4 May 2019..."
  • Sentence starting "At the same day the covered tablets of the royal seal..."
  • There's an excessive citation tag near the bottom, looks like the refs could be spread around the paragraph to indicate what statements are sourced to what.
• Fail few things to work on

Stability

• Quite a big edit yesterday but looks clear
• Pass

Neutrality

• Seems good
• Pass

Copyright

• I don't know what's going on with this Reddit comparison? Doesn't seem like copyvio, but there's something unusual there. Do you know what it is?
• Otherwise good
• ...pass

Overall

• on hold - see comments Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• No response and no nominator activity in a week after being informed review opened leads me to give this a Fail. Kingsif (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)