Talk:Shanthi Kalathil

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Shanthi Kalathil, NSC Coordinator

• ... that former senior Biden administration human rights official Shanthi Kalathil (pictured) believes Radio Free Asia "filled a critical role in combating Chinese disinformation"? Source: https://www.rfa.org/about/releases/rfa-welcomes-new-members-to-its-board
  • ALT1: ... that former senior Biden administration human rights official Shanthi Kalathil (pictured) believes the Chinese government uses "its unique carrots" as well as sticks to "create a foundation for its influence"? Source: https://www.congress.gov/115/meeting/house/108056/witnesses/HHRG-115-FA05-Wstate-KalathilS-20180321.pdf
  • Reviewed:

Created by W9793 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Shanthi Kalathil; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• First, the good: this nom does not require a QPQ (W9793, this will be your fifth if approved, so further noms will require QPQs). The article is long enough, new enough, and referenced. The hooks are interesting enough and referenced. However, Earwig returned an incredibly high match rate of 56.6%. Part of this is because of the numerous unavoidable titles she has held, so we can ignore that. However, much of this because of extensive quotes by her as well as some lifted text that must be fixed. While the quotes are generally in the public domain, on the role of information and technology in international affairs appears to lift from this. While this can be resolved using paraphrasing, I think it speaks to a neutrality issue in this article. I can find no reliable sources that outright criticize her, but it should be reliable sources adding commentary on her and her comments rather than extended quotations. Plenty of reliable sources exist on her, so I expect that the necessary changes can be made without the size of the article taking a hit. I'd ask that these fixes be done within a week, with a ping to notify me when they're done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Seeing no improvements forthcoming, I made a paraphrase change myself. I think this article is fine to run as a DYK, but it can be improved. Thank you for the nomination! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something remarkable about DYK articles and hooks? This is just a case of 'US government official approves of US government outlet's opposing an adversary of the US government'. In other news, the sky is blue. It would have been somewhat remarkable and unusual if she didn't approve of it. This is akin to 'Did you know that China's foreign minister approves of Xinhua news agency's messaging?' The only point of promoting this to the front page - with either hook - seems to be to covertly present the standard US government position as objectively correct.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shanthi Kalathil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hi, I’ll try to review this article later on. 03:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Concern: Okay, let's start with addressing the elephant in the article: it's quite short. That goes without saying. Also, it relies heavily on primary sources. But this isn't really the nominator's fault. After doing a check, there isn't a whole lot of secondary sources on the subject. However, I still think there's room to broaden the article:

• This source has lot's of info on the subject's parents/upbringing. Please incorporate in the article. [1]
• You might as well merge the personal life and education sections
• For the Views on diplomacy and democracy section, I would axe this section completely as it's just two long primary-sourced quotes. Instead, look for secondary examinations on the subject's views. I found a great deal of scholarly analysis on the subject's Open Networks, Closed Regimes book: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Please incorporate in the article.

Other changes:

• Lead:
  • " international affairs practitioner" --> "foreign policy expert"
  • " journalist" --> "former journalist"
  • "human rights advocate" --> let's not clutter the lead sentence too much. Remove this. Instead, write that she's an expert on human rights somewhere else in the lead (I saw a source that stated that)
• Education:
  • comparative politics --> link
• Career:
  • Things like Biden administration and NSC (needs to be fully spelled out) need links. I know it's linked and spelled out in the lead but we ignore that.
  • democratic development, the information environment --> also link this to something
  • Wall Street Journal Asia --> italics

I'm going to put the article on the standard 7-day hold so you can expand it and fix the other problems. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these notes, @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. W9793 (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d - I've addressed most of the issues raised - please let me know if you think further revision (e.g. expansion) is needed. Thanks. W9793 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it’s better, but there is still room to expand. By just searching through JSTOR alone, I found plenty of sources you can use to broaden the article: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Granted, no one source has super in-depth information (except maybe the council of foreign relation source) so you would really need to spend some time extracting a bit of Information from each source. I would also highly recommend you search other databases for sources. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I would still recommend you remove that long quote from her testimony. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added some reviews and moved the testimony to publications - I somehow neglected that quote earlier. W9793 (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, good. If you can, try to extract some more information from the remaining sources I listed. You can also mention in the early life section Shanthi's mother Lucia Tang is the daughter of late General Tang. After doing all that, you’re going to need to increase the lead by a couple of sentences. The lead doesn’t need to mention everything in the article, but it should include things from every section and give an overall summary of the subject. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, have you done a comprehensive search for more sources? The WP:LIBRARY may be of use to you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)