Wikipedia:Peer review/Lèse majesté in Thailand/archive1

Lèse majesté in Thailand

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is a potential good article. I would like to receive general suggestions and suggestions per GA criteria.

Thanks, Horus (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Tom

@Horus a fascinating article and topic. Good articles are reviewed against six criteria (WP:GA?). I think your article is easy to read and verifiable. I think the inclusion of a "history" section would help it meet the comprehensiveness criteria. Once that section has been created, I recommend nominate for GA and address any concerns as the review goes along. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Farang Rak Tham

The article looks pretty good. If you want, I volunteer for Good Article assessment. Just nominate and I'll be there. I have a few comments:

• The structure of the article is not clear enough. the article's narrative jumps from history to law to society, and back again. Some sections may need to be merged or reordered.
• Some of the examples and quotes given, such as the quote of King Bhumibol that he can be criticized, and the case of John Oliver make for an interesting read, but it remains unclear what effects these events really had on the law or on the perception of it. E.g., King Bhumibol's speech led to a rise of S.112 cases, but this is not mentioned. Also, was Oliver really charged or was that just the story he told? Other notable cases and opinions, such as the charges against Andrew MacGregor Marshall and the opinion of the new party led by Thanatorn Jongrungreangkij are not mentioned.
• You hardly use any Thai sources at all. Though, following Wikipedia policy, English sources should be given preference, many information about this is in Thai language (and French)-- not in English. I know you can speak Thai, so you might consider adding content from Thai sources that is not covered by English sources.
• Many of the sources are "bare urls"-- you should give at least the title and date of each source, in case the the link no longer exists.
• Those are my few thoughts, for what it is worth. Looks like an article which could certainly make it to GA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In retrospect, I have noticed there are many scholarly sources about the subject not covered in the article. you might want to integrate more of this before you nominate for GA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ping, ping.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. What would you suggest regarding sectioning the article? --Horus (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Horus, you might want to have

1. a law section, dealing with the basics of the law, including the law on Internet
2. a history section, dealing with the history of the law and its recent applications, which often also affects how the law's interpretation changed through history, and a subsection about how the Internet law was created and applied
3. opinion can stay as it is, but the list of activists needs to be integrated into the narrative, or deleted per GA criterion on list integration.

Right now, the sections on law and history are not clearly separated, and most of the article is not chronological.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wikiman5676

The article is comprehensive but has a few awkward issues i think. For instance statement here in the intro "There was a controversy whether criticism of members of Bhumibol's privy council also qualifies as lèse-majesté. The Supreme Court of Thailand decided in 2013 that the law also applies to any previous monarchs. Later that year, a man was found guilty of "preparing and attempting" to commit an act of lèse-majesté, even though the law states that the mere planning of such act is not an offence. In 2015, a man was sentenced for a "sarcastic" comment online about the King's dog, Tongdaeng." is a bit specific. It would improve the quality of the article if you just summarized the main ideas of these examples in the lead instead of putting the specific events in. (something like "There has been debate over how strictly the laws should be applied, with the Supreme Court of Thailand deciding in 2013 that the laws apply to previous monarchs. The laws are so strict that even "planning" to commit lese majeste, sarcasm and online comments about the royal family have been prosecuted for lese majeste" something along those lines). Specific events seem weird in the lead and are better left for the body, except for really notable specific events like "In one case it sentenced a man to 60 years in prison (later reduced to 30 years after he pleaded guilty), the longest recorded sentence." which belongs in the lead and does a good job of summarizing the overall point. Just my thoughts Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)