Talk:Living River Siam/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will be reviewing this article soon! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do any of your sources mention Living River Siam besides its own website? I can't find any that do. You need to use some reliable sources

• e.g. Charoenpo, Anucha. "Bangkok Post". www.bangkokpost.com. Retrieved 2009-08-13. {{cite web}}: Text "General news" ignored (help); Text "Warnings on floods faulted" ignored (help), Macan-Markar, Marwaan. "South-East Asia: Mekong Flood Warning System Fails - IPS ipsnews.net". ipsnews.net. Retrieved 2009-08-13.

• Also, I notice that in your sections you mix the chronology.

• e.g. in Government reaction and other responses, you start in 2007 but you end in 2002. Ideally you should include dates and timeframes, preferably in chronological order.

• Also, should you mention the Mekong River Commission, as according to this book they come up with opposing data?

• Molle, FrançoisT (2009). Contested Waterscapes in the Mekong Region. Earthscan Publications Ltd. p. 295. ISBN 1844077071. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Advocacy coalitions in the Mekong region have been quick to challenge the protection benefits of dams. The higher-than-usual flood levels that occurred in the Mekong River in August 2008 triggered a rapid response from a coalition of local and international organizations that are typically opposed to mainstream dams. The Thai People's Network on Mekong, including the NGOs Foundation for Ecological Recovery and Living River Siam, were quick to assert that the serious flood conditions were, in part, a result of operations of dams in China's Yunnan Province. Dams, they argued, were a cause of flooding, not a source of protection as has been frequently claimed. The Mekong River Commission was quick to defend China, stating that there was no evidence that dam operations had any impact upon the severity of the flood. The print media in the region closely followed the debates, continuing to give substantial space to dam critics. Many other related articles appeared in the media in the following days, reporting on the perceptions of people along the banks about the river-level change and its likely causes, as well as the performance of early warning systems. By 1 September, the MRC had followed up with a detailed situational report backing its initial claims of no significant effect of dames in China on flood conditions.

Just want to make sure you present citations for both sides. The language of the article is good and neutral sounding. —mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(3) Interesting-- I wrote this article with the help of a professor who was involved in the Thaksin-era assessment but that commission never came up. I will get back to you on that. Certainly it's relevant to that section of the article. Added a section.

(2) There were three different aspects of the national reaction to the research-- I put the one ending in 2007 at the top because it's the most immediately relevant to Pak Mun Dam. Does this make the article confusing?

(1) Most of my sources, e.g. Weekly Matichon, Inter Press Service and Bangkok Post, mention LRS under its old name SEARIN. I agree that most of my sources provide more background information than discussion of the relevance of LRS' research, but I don't think I've made any unreliable statements about LRS' impact. Shii (tock) 23:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It all looks good. I think it would be helpful if you put the year the LRS gained prominence it the lead. Was it 1997? And when did they develop the Thai Baan research? —mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good point. I'll add those dates into the lede now. Shii (tock) 23:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• I have done some editing. Feel free to revert any mistakes I have made. —mattisse (Talk) 01:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well reverenced b (citations to reliable sources): References are reliable c (OR): No original research

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers overall aspects b (focused): Remains forcued on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

An extremely interesting article. Congratulations! —mattisse (Talk) 01:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Shii (tock) 02:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)