 | Siege of Bangkok was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 4, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1688 Siege of Bangkok (illustration pictured) ended with the total retreat of French troops from Siam, modern-day Thailand? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Bangkok/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- The lead should be a summary of the entire article, with no new information included. All of the information should be found in the body of the article, and the references should be placed in the body of the article.
- a (prose):
- According to WP:LEDE the lead should be two paragraphs. At the moment there is only one slightly scant paragraph, which is insufficient to comply with lede recommendations.
- Many of the sections in the "Seige of Bangkok" section are very short, and the the section headers are fairly long. Possible combine "Abandonment of the Thonburi fortress" and "Attempt to re-capture the Thonburi fortress" and rename it to simply "Thonburi fortress". Also, possible combine "De-escalation" and "Peace agreement" and rename it "De-escalation and peace". Any other reasonable combinations you can see would be great, as well.
- In the "De-escalation" subsection, you say "managed to eliminate all the pretenders to the throne". Were they really pretenders to the throne, or were they actual viable candidates that Petracha called pretenders in order to facilitate their murders? Clarification would be helpful.
- Also in the "De-escalation" subsection, you say that the French boat was commanded by "de l'Estrilles". Is this someone that you have introduced earlier? If not, please give his full name and link to him if he has an article.
- In the "Maria Guyomar de Pinha" subsection, you say that Petracha captured dozens of people to "obtain her turn". Do you mean her "return"? Also you say "and resume a full conflict," Do you mean a "resumation" of full conflict?
- In the "Aftermath" section, you say "The occupation of the island led nowhere," Does this mean that he wasn't able to occupy the island, or he did and it didn't help his position at all, or something else completely? Clarification would be appreciated.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- Reference format should be standardized. If you are going to use the short format for books for inline references, and put the full information in the references section, then do it that way for every book. At the moment it looks like Smithies was done with the short format and the rest of the books were done using a long format. Also, you can use named references to combine references to the same page in a book, which will make the notes section easier to read.
- Several areas still need references. These include:
- The first and last paragraphs of the "Background" section
- a (references):
- In the "Seige of Bangkok" section, the last sentence of the intro paragraph and the last sentences of the first two subsections, as well as the last two sentences of the "Retreat from Bangkok" section
- Current ref #5 needs a page number
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- Images should be staggered right and left to make the article flow better.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I am placing this article on hold for seven days in order to allow the editors to deal with the issues I have outlined above. I would also recommend re-reading the entire article for prose and grammar issues and to make sure it flows well. If you have questions, I can be contacted here on the review page (I have it watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- This nomination was closed by another user who neglected to check with me first. I still have minor concerns about referencing in the article, and was planning to take another quick run through the prose, but overall this was nothing to fail the article on. Although I cannot reverse a GA close, I would support a quick renom of the article after minor work has been done. Dana boomer (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sourcing edit
Concerns about the sourcing of this article have been raised at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence. I am not familiar with the sources myself, but on a quick spot-check, it does appear to be the case that the majority of this article is sourced from primary sources (such as the Smithies refs), and not secondary sources, which are preferred. Accordingly, I have tagged this article as needing better sourcing, and will also contact PHG's mentor to pay closer attention to this article. --Elonka 21:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)