The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2016 [1].

Norodom Sihanouk[edit]

Nominator(s): Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Norodom Sihanouk, the central figure in the history of Modern Cambodia. He is regarded as the founding father of the country, having secured Cambodia's independence from French rule in 1953. Sihanouk was Cambodia's monarch, Head of State, Prime Minister and resistance leader, serving in these different capacities throughout different periods of Cambodia's tumultuous history, plaqued by civil war and political intrigue in the 20th century. All are welcome to appraise or critique as deemed necessary. Thanks! ... Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I should be free on Sundays. I"ll drop by on weekdays as well, but bear with me if I might lag, especially on larger issues that needs more time to address (especially content issues, if any). Mr Tan (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Hi, thanks for your comments.

1. Which images are the ones that have issues? I believe that Freedom of Panaroma occurs when lets say, for example, you take the image File:Elections 40365 02072008.jpg, which is taken by User X, and he releases it as CC. Then User Y crops it and claims it to be released into File:Sam_rainsy.png, which is then evidently as you said "Freedom of Panaroma. All pictures as I have checked are from direct sources - though if you can point out the picture(s) in question, I"ll be glad to look into them.

That isn't what it means - it refers to the copyright of photographs of 3D things. In countries that have freedom of panorama, you only need to consider the copyright of the photographer; in countries that don't, you also need to account for the copyright of the 3D thing (sculpture, building, etc) that is pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So which is the picture that is problematic? Is it this one - File:Sihanouk statue at night.jpg? Kindly advice... Mr Tan (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2a. I agree with your concern on the infobox. (PS: I wasn't the creator of the infobox.) I thought it was fine leaving them, since it outlines Sihanouk's appointments - they're unfortunately long as he alternately took up and resigned from his political offices many times. What do you suggest that I do with them - remove one of them?

That's one possibility, or you could figure out whether there's some way to embed one within the other, but if you do that you'll still need to cut down on the parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most lengthy parameters are the "Prime Ministers" portion of the [Infobox officeholder]. The only way I can think of is to simply remove them, or alternatively I can condense the "Prime Ministers" part to "1955-1962", but that would appear to be somewhat a misrepresentation as he did not serve in that period continuously, but on an on-off basis. I personally agree that is a problem and agree that it would be ideal to take it away, but I can't say if other editors think so otherwise. While I would go along with removing [Infobox officeholder] in its entirety, I cannot guarantee that other editors with alternative viewpoints could put it back up some point in the future. That's why I had been hesitant to remove it until now. Mr Tan (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have informed User talk:SovanDara on this, should he have any views or inputs on this. Mr Tan (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Infobox Officeholder should be removed as well. SovanDara 12:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: On hindsight, I think it is not a good idea to remove the Infobox Officeholder altogether. Citing Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Bodybuilding_career as an example, his article has more than one infobox - a political officeholder and a bodybuilder infoboxes. To address your concern, I have removed the interim predecessor and successor Prime Ministers, and keeping only the dates of his on-off tenure as PM. I believe that this would be more amendable to any 3rd or 4th parties who have a strong opinion of wanting an officeholder infobox up. (Feel free to check the changes at the article.) I hope this sufficiently address the concern? ..... Mr Tan (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2b. I believe your concern is about his life before Sihanouk was crowned in 1941. There are a couple of sources that describes his childhood years, but I feel that it would be more advisable to keep it short, as according to the sources, were of a very personal and intimate nature. They basically talked about his relations with his parents, elderly members of the household, and his academic performances at school. Which I thought were not really notable, and it would be wiser to keep it to the schools that he had attended. (PS: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion). I had also considered the issue that the article is about 100kB in length, and hence it would be more ideal to focus on the more important areas of his life - which typically starts after he became King in 1941.

I'm aware that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, but in this particular case more details would help us to better understand the subject. Further, you do discuss some of those details in later sections - such as when you talk about his early musical education. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I"ll dig out the resources, and I think I can probably expand his pre-king life by another 3-4 sentences. I think his musical interests should be kept to a seperate section, since Sihanouk developed a fairly well-known side career on this, and as such, any mentions on his early development of his artistic talents would ideally be kept separate. But give me about two weeks to write it out, as I need a bit of time to revisit the library to re-consult the necessary resources. I"ll let you know again once I do up on this. Mr Tan (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3/4. Will look into them. Would you mind pointing out areas of the prose that you feel needs improvement? It"ll be good if you list them out here, or go ahead to Copyedit where you feel necessary. (I"ll look through them again on my part as well.) Mr Tan (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particular paragraph or section, but rather problems throughout the article. Here are a few examples:
  • "Later as Sihanouk lived in exile during the 1980s, Sihanouk hosted concerts to entertain diplomats" - awkwardly phrased, no need to repeat the name
  • "Sihanouk maintained tenacious ties with the US" - I think you mean tenuous?
  • "While Sihanouk accused Ngo Dinh Nhu of masterminding the bomb attack, the incident deepened his distrust of the US,[53] which he suspected that they had played a complicit role in it" - grammar
  • "where he tacitly acknowledged the presence of Viet Cong troops in the Cambodia" - grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all four points as of now. Please feel free to point out any additional areas that needs to be fixed, or go ahead and make the amends where you feel it's necessary. I"ll definitely try to proofread again, and a second pair of eyes would definitely be very helpful. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

1. I understand that you mentioned that Cambodia does not have freedom of panorama based on the article's infographic. I accept that, but I would really need you to advice if: a. This is the picture in question - File:Elections 40365 02072008.jpg; or if there are any other pictures in the article that share this problem b. If this (or additional) pictures are indeed problematic, then should I just remove from the article and possibly sent it for deletion

2. On hindsight, I think it would be wiser to leave the content of the infoboxes as it is. I agree with the concern of your length, and had considered removing one of the infoboxes, or trying to shorten it by removing some content. I think neither is a good idea, but I've made some measures to shorten it:

I believe that both measures shorten the length of the infoboxes significantly - interested users can click "show" to see more details. However, it would be very difficult to shorten any further, as I think it is important to bear in mind that Sihanouk had a long and varied career.

3. I've expanded his early life, as you have pointed out previously. However, it is not possible to expand any further, as his official biography only dedicated about 2 pages out of 70 on his pre-king life. Another source, written by Osborne dedicated only one chapter on this, out of a total of around fifteen, but even then half the content was about Cambodia's history rather than the personal details of his life. I think we need to keep in mind that he became king at 19, and definitely it is an event that took place very early in his life. I'm of the opinion that specialised details of his life, such as Sihanouk learning to play "clarinet, saxophone, piano and accordion" should be kept to the "Music" section of his biography. Otherwise, that section may end up too thin in content.

4. I've spent the past seven days copyediting on prose and grammar, and I hope I have improved the state of the article. (If there are any areas that I might have missed out which you spotted, please feel free to make the fix where you deem necessary).

I hope all issues are sufficiently addressed (including #1). However, if there are any additional areas that needs to be worked out further, I hope you can pinpoint the area that needs redress, and I"ll be glad to look at them again with you. Mr Tan (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.That image does not appear in this article. The images at issue are File:King_Norodom_Sihanouk's_funeral_procession_01.jpg and File:Sihanouk_statue_at_night.jpg.
Frankly, I don't know where did the author of the infographic at the "Freedom of Panaroma" article got the source that this was an issue. I have browsed through the laws at [2], and that there's I can't find any mention of this. Anyway, I"ll tentatively remove both pictures from the article. Mr Tan (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2.What about embedding one box in the other? At the moment they are still overwhelming and one does not know where to look to get what information (since personal details are split between the two).
I have tried using edit preview, but currently I don't know how to overcome the technical obstacles.
The article is using "Infobox officeholder" and "Infobox royalty". The problem is, Infobox royalty allows only up to three tenure parameters, whereas Infobox officeholder allows up to fifteen. If I were to transpose the parameters from the second infobox to the first, only the third tenure would show up, and all those from the fourth onwards would not show up. Sihanouk has up to fourteen or fifteen, and those infobox elements would become invisible.
I can only say that Sihanouk had a varied career, and the Guinness Book of Records listed him as having held the "greatest number of political offices" ever in his lifetime. It is inevitable that, for our case, that the list of political offices that he held is longer than most other people. Concerning confusion, I think placing the putting the most important office that the subject held at the top of any infoboxes for that matter - in this case, Kingship would suffice. I think, Sihanouk is remembered as king, more than he is as Prime Minister or Head of State, and the other subsidiary offices can be placed at the bottom.
Take a similar example, the former VP of the US, Dick Cheney - his infobox was also lined with six other political offices. Wouldn't that look "confusing" as well? Similarly, I think that Cheney would be remembered as a former VP, more than being a Chief of Staff than anything else. Hence I believe the issue of order and precedence is more crucial here, and I personally wouldn't really bother to look at anything else after the 3rd or 4th office that the subject has ever held. Mr Tan (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


3.Good
4.I suggest it might be helpful to seek assistance from the Guild, as there are still considerable problems with article prose and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent this article for Peer Review, twice, and the second round failed to elicit a review after 3 or 4 months of waiting. I've participated in this Copyediting Guild not too long ago on a seperate project, and nobody bothered to pick it up either. As I currently see it, there are more than 1,600 articles in the backlog. Thus far, those forums have not been very effective, attention-wise, and I have observed so far that the FAC that is reasonably effective in drawing attention.
May I seek your help in editing or pointing out specific parts of the article that need corrections? It would be great if you can pinpoint them out, as I believe that you must have given the article a pretty detailed glance-through to make the judgement. I hope you can consider offering a little helping hand on this..... Mr Tan (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My judgment is that there are more than a few areas in need of correction, and while I can point out or correct examples, this isn't the place for a detailed line-by-line analysis. I understand your frustration with backlogs and lack of response at PR/GOCE, but unfortunately FAC is not designed to substitute for those venues. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that detailed analysis should be reserved for the peer review or guild platforms. You are right on this count, principle-wise. If I had jumped directly to FAC, and a reviewer advises that there are problems with the prose, then it would be obligatory for me to send it to one of the platforms. However, I had sent this for PR–twice and gotten no meaningful response. I frankly doubt that sending it back to PR or the guild for the third time would be helpful, and from my observations so far, the FAC is the only platform that has gotten any significant attention from editors. I do note that some editors do, in fact give very detailed-in-line analyses on FAC, and past FACs like the case in "Palmyra", or ongoing FACs such as God of War (series) (among others) are wonderful testaments to this. And I believe that the relative inactivity (or insufficient activity) at these two platforms may have partly contributed to such stuff being done here .
It would be good if someone can give a second opinion as well, to see how this article can be improved upon. Perhaps I can ask, if you have any buddy editors that you are familiar with, which you can rope-in to co-review? Nevertheless, I hope you can assist in identifying the problematic areas in the prose. I have seen that you have run through one section of the article, and I do appreciate it very much. I think, right now you are saying that "there is a problem", but you are not really telling me "where" is the problem. I definitely need help to pinpoint as to where the problematic areas are, otherwise we"ll be going back-and-forth like this, and any I doubt additional rounds of proofreading and CE attempts would be effective. I will proofread and CE again--and as many times as it is required, and I"ll appreciate if you can provide more inputs from your side. Mr Tan (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from cas liber[edit]

It is located in Phnom Penh - I've counter-checked the sources that I have with me. Francois Baudoin was actually a French-medium school and Nuon Moniram was actually a temple school where he learnt Cambodian and Buddhism. But I"ll omit these details out for the time being, as I'm scared that the prose can become too convoluted if excess details are "forced" in. Mr Tan (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored this sentence to the pre-CE version (by myself). ... Mr Tan (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Overall I think this prose is probably fixable but there are grammatical errors - generally involving the use of commas as subordinate clauses. I have fixed what I have found but suspect there are more. Generally I miss some after one or two passes. Some odd grammar as well. I think this needs someone else to check as well. I will look later after a rest from it as I tend to lose sensitivity after a while.

I wonder if there is more criticism or critical assessment of his ruling style overall that can be placed in the article. I am not familiar with Cambodian politics enough to speak authoritatively on this though.

Anyway, will be back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! He was pretty authoritarian (between 1955-1970) - as you can see that elections are in practice, rigged to his favour and that opponents are imprisoned. However, I feel that inputting any specialised commentary on his governance would be tricky, since the prose on this is currently split into three sections - lodging the discussion into the first section could give the impression that he being authoritarian maybe confined to only one of the three periods. That's why I thought it would be better if it is reflected subtly through the events mentioned. When he was king between 1993-2004, he was very much a ceremonial monarch. I will re-consult the resources and see how I can incorporate any explicit discussion of his ruling style into the article. Perhaps by elaborating on the intimidation and torture that he used in 1955 to cow the voters into voting for him, or events reflecting his direct involvement on imprisoning political opponents maybe useful - I"ll consider.... Mr Tan (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Update Hi Casliber, I like your suggestion very much and added in text describing his administration style where appropriate. Any additional comments on this? (PS: I also have feedback that the prose is still "problematic", would appreciate if you can make any fixes or point them out where appropriate. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Checkingfax[edit]

Hi, Mr Tan. It was my pleasure to dig into this very fascinating article. In the article, I made 15 edit sessions starting here; mostly MoS and aesthetic stuff. I also fixed a couple of reference errors.

I made two edits to refine the infoboxes starting here. I am not sure why some of the parameters are not displaying properly, even though they are filled out properly.

At 9500 words, this is among Wikipedia's longer articles. I would suggest a mild trim. I did no significant prose edits at this stage. I will be happy to !vote on this article when it is closer to being tightened up. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 01:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've trimmed it very slightly when I did the first round of CE personally. It was originally at 100kb - now at 94kb. Unless major points are removed from the article, it would be very difficult for any significant reductions to take place - even if it is to 85kb or something like that. I think, what we need to keep in mind is that Sihanouk was a very important person, and he was involved in many significant events which needs to be mentioned in order to give sufficient and balanced coverage. A fair number of FAs that have exceeded 100kB - such as Marilyn Monroe and Ronald Reagan - which I think is fine, so long as micro-details of an events are not excessively harped upon...
I like the edit you made to the infoboxes and find them very interesting - this was a concern previously voiced out by Nikkimaria. I agree that more work needs to be done - including a suggestion to include one point made by Casliber. Thank you so much, and I hope you can continue to assist and advise where necessary. (Y) Mr Tan (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mr Tan. I moved the first body image down the page by one paragraph so it does not create a text corridor between it and the infobox(es). I also added three ((US$)) templates. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 05:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I would personally prefer to have the images positioned at the very top of the section - I think the issue of narrowed text corridor would be an issue if you have a very low screen resolution (800 X 600 or 1024 X 768), which is already a rarity nowadays. I don't agree with your image shifts, and I may or may not discuss with you on this later. (It"ll be good if you can show any Wikipedia policies or guidelines specifying how images should be positioned to justify your image preferences).
Right now I'm much more concerned about the prose grammar, as well as sourcing more information pertaining to Cas Liber's suggestion (above). I will come back in no later than a week as I'm a little busy with real life issues over the next few days, though I have a lingering fear that the FAC coordinators may suddenly close the discussion.... Mr Tan (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008[edit]

Oppose – I wish that I didn't find myself in this position. We could always use more FAs on statesmen, and the article certainly appears comprehensive. Unfortunately, the quality of the writing is a bit of a letdown. There were copy-editing templates at the top of the article the last couple of days, but whoever worked on it didn't catch everything, as the following examples demonstrate:

While I think you've done a lot of great work to bring the article to this point, I'm picking out errors in most places that I'm looking at. I only read pieces of the latter half of the page, so I'm sure there are more issues lurking in the parts I didn't read. You're not going to like hearing this, but I feel like the best course of action would be to withdraw the FAC and start another peer review. The secret of PR is that you should go out and ask for input, rather than hoping that somebody stumbles into the article and takes an interest in it, which doesn't happen often enough these days. Try inviting the editors who have commented here, and seek out views from an editor of featured political biographies such as Wehwalt or Coemgenus, who would give you more useful feedback on the content than I can provide. As for this FAC, even with the copy-editing that has taken place the prose still has issues, and I doubt that you will be able to receive enough support for promotion at this time as problems are still being found. Sorry I can't give you better news, but I have to call FACs as I see them or I wouldn't be doing my job as a reviewer. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inputs. I think you have pointed out some very useful comments here, and I'll be looking through them over the next 24 hours. As I see it, the moment this FAC closes, there's a good chance that all the editors will simply forget about it, and at this rate I don't think the article will ever improve. I feel that it would be good if we can focus on the actual work on attempting to improve the article, on any deficiencies that you can spot rather than thinking about supporting or withdrawing for now.
I"ll ping you again once I have gone through and addressed your comments, and if you are able to spot any additional areas that needs to be fixed - do feel free to fix them or let me know. I"ll get busy on it now, thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For your suggestions, I've accepted all the above, thanks. Grammar wise, I sometimes face the dilemma of as to whether if I were to add more words, or remove excess words, as that sometimes can make the context more ambiguous (example would be your second and third points). If you feel that there are additional areas that seem ambiguous or not right, I'd like to hear from you. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry, I know the nominator has worked to address comments above but, as Giants has said, there may be further issues to be identified and addressed, and when a review has been open almost four weeks we expect things to have progressed much further towards consensus to promote. I'm therefore going to archive the nom and echo the suggestion to put the article through PR before considering a return here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More