Talk:Mae Salong/GA1

Failed GA nomination[edit]

Hi, I will be doing the GA review for this article. I'll post up my detailed thoughts in the next 24 hours or so, after I've had an opportunity to take a good look at the article. One initial thought I have is that this article would be significantly improved by the addition of an infobox, to summarise some of the main information about the village. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now assessed this article against the six good article criteria, and here are my conclusions:

1. Well written?:

It isn't required that a good article follow all of the manual of style guidelines, but it should do so for the lead section, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. The article generally reads well, but there are some parts in need of a little copyediting:

"Today, Santikhiri is still obscure with a frontier town ambience running through its narrow winding streets lined with inns, noodle shops and teashops since it became a tourist attraction in 1994 when its uniqueness led to many tour operators cashing in on its appeal." Did it not have this "frontier town ambience" before 1994?
A significant amount of the text seems to have been copied directly from the sources cited.

Thank you for review and interest shown on this article earlier. Fyi, 'The Star' article is the most current & reliable update on Santikhiri and its inhabitants according to my earlier research for this article. I learnt about the place many years ago during my visit to Chiangmai but was unable to visit Santithiri as it was closed to foreigners (except locals) due to the cross border tension with Myanmar then. A few lucky friends of mine managed to make a transit visit during their auto-ventures (Singapore to China) & came back home safely to relate their experiences in recent years that sparked me to write on this article when I came upon the latest news articles & online references earlier. I would be most happy if u or anyone else can provide me any new leads or references. I've already made the necessary edit for manual of style as highlighted earlier. -- Aldwinteo 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate?:

The article relies heavily on a very few sources, one of which, the last, is not properly sourced. Is that also a reference to The Star article of 25 February 2007? If so, I'd be concerned about the article relying almost entirely on a single source. I've checked The Star's online archive, and I can't find any article on this subject in the issue cited. Is that definitely the correct issue?

Actually, the article was not based on a single source but 5 instead if u check carefully the endnotes and external links listed earlier. The 2 wrongly placed references (with source and dates mentioned) were wrongly attributed under the "External links" section earlier. They were used to cross check its history and in obtaining some Thai names earlier. I've attributed them correctly now. As for the 'missing article' u quoted, the reference quoted is correct as it was based on the actual hardcopy which I retain. It was written on p. SM5 of The Star as a background story of the 93rd Division. Based on my experiences in archival research for all my Wiki writings to date, it's prudent not to rely solely on certain online sources for verification as not all its information are complete such as author name, page no., supplementary pages etc. If u wan to find out more, u can email me via my homepage link so that I can email u the scanned copy for your information. -- Aldwinteo 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I'm referring to is the one now numbered 8. Where is that published? --Malleus Fatuarum 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? The article concerned was not printed on the main section of The Star but in its Sunday supplement dated Feb 25 called 'StarMag' on p. SM5. To help u to get a clearer picture on this issue, I've amended the reference on the article page which was previously an 'Endnote' entry into a full 'Reference' citation as follows: Chua Mui Yoon. "China’s forgotten soldiers — Long March to Peace", StarMag (The Star Sunday supplement), 25 February 2007, p. SM5.

The article claims that the inhabitants speak Mandarin, but one of the references given says: "Most of the inhabitants of Mae Salong still speak Yunnanese". Which, given that they came from Yunnan, seems more plausible.

The statement u quoted: "Most of the inhabitants of Mae Salong still speak Yunnanese" is highly vague. Which "Yunnanese" language or dialect does the writer refer to earlier? Fyi, Yunnan province has nearly 55 ethnic groups that also includes the Chinese (or "han ren"), which the the 93rd Division belongs to distinctively and as such, speak mainly Mandarin. As for the Chinese, they also speak in their ancestral dialects like Teochew, Minnan, Cantonese, Hakka, Hainanese... Regardless who they are, the Chinese or the minorities, the lingua franca in China is Mandarin. The same also applies to overseas Chinese which uses Mandarin to retain their cultural identity. -- Aldwinteo 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was just pointing out an apparent discrepancy with what one of the sources said. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage?:

This article does a good job covering the story of the Chinese Army's 93rd Division, but it does not adequately cover the village of Santikhiri, lacking even basic information such as the village's geographical co-ordinates or its population. You might like to look at articles on other villages, or the WP:CITIES guidelines for the sort of information that's missing.

I agree with u on on this point. Fyi, I went thru' much headaches on the nonclamenture of this article, as earlier references covered both together (or as side story). I'm OK if you think that the article should be renamed as "Chinese Army's 93rd Division" or other suitable titles. -- Aldwinteo 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the article was renamed as you're suggesting then it would also need to be rewritten somewhat. The Geography section would no longer be relevant, and the Sankithiri today section would need to be pruned and the relevant information presented differently. It would make for quite a short article, but length isn't a criteria for GA, just broad coverage. My feeling is that you would probably need to expand the information a little bit; there's a hint about drugs for instance. Did the soldiers support themselves by producing opium? Do they still now? What exactly was their "involvement" in the Golden Triangle's drug trade?

If I were an editor of this article, I think on balance I'd try to add the missing information about the village, and include the 93rd Division as a part of the village's history. It would make for a more substantial article. But it may be that the information on the village simply isn't available, in which case better to rename the article. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'll inform u to review again after much brainstorming & rewriting is done in the near future. Fyi, I choose to name the article as "Santikhiri" & not country-centric names earlier as it's "neutral" in context because I do not want to attract some ultra ROC or PRC nationalists which may lead into another senseless edit wars (even more headaches!), and subsequent intervention by an administrator to cut the crap again! See an example here.

4. Neutral point of view?:

I have concerns over statements like "infamous warlord", "ragtag militia", "breathtaking and far-reaching panoramic views", "The area is special ...". They seem to express a particular point of view.

Specified statements corrected as per NPOV. -- Aldwinteo 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stability?:

No problem with the stability of the article.

6. Images?:

There needs to be a complete non-fair use rationale provided for the map. I suggest you might consider using the {{Non-free use rationale}} tag as a check that all of the required information is given. Same applies to the picture of General Lue Ye-tien.

??? I've already mentioned the "Non-free use rationale" below the images since 3 Jul 2007! -- Aldwinteo 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have. But the present non-fair use rationale is missing some required sections as per the {{Non-free use rationale}} tag. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I finally got the message now, u want me to use the new {{Non-free use rationale}} template instead. It's done! I thought u were asking me to declare the "fair use rationale" in which I've already done so months ago. Fyi, the format I adopted previously was recommended by an Administrator earlier. (See here)

I enjoyed reading this article, and if it had been about the Chinese Army's 93rd division then I would have put it on hold, pending a resolution of the issues above. But as it is an article about the village of Santikhiri, I think there is still a great deal of work to be done on it, so I'm going to fail this nomination.

If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the brainstorming and rewriting. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for your time and suggestions offered. I hope to rewrite and target for another review by end of Oct 2007 if my later research (there goes my weekends!) is fruitful. See u then! -- Aldwinteo 09:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]