Talk:Kidnapping of Wang Xing
 | Kidnapping of Wang Xing is currently a Law good article nominee. Nominated by – robertsky (talk) at 10:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review this article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor. When complete, this review will be closed by the reviewer. To view the review and add comments, click discuss review. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kidnapping of Wang Xing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Translation issues
editThere are still passages that need cleaning up such as "At 3:40 am, he boarded a grey Toyota Altis sedan at the airport purportedly provided by GMM Grammy and would be transport him to the opening ceremony." And the Chinese citations should have at least the publication names translated to English.
The case has generated international news coverage, so it would be a good idea to replace some of the citations with English-language sources where possible per WP:NONENG. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I must have had multiple tabs open and edited the wrong one and removed the latest edit to the quoted sentence, though that didn't solve the broken grammar. I've rewritten it, but there are still other spots. On the whole, though, I think the article focuses a bit much on the small details and could be improved by providing a better view of the big picture. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
GA review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Kidnapping of Wang Xing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Robertsky (talk · contribs) 10:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: WorldwideParasol (talk · contribs) 03:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
A good article is:
- Well-written. - Verifiable with no original research. - Broad in it’s coverage - Neutral - Stable - Has Illustrations, if possible
I will be doing a GA review of this; this is my first time, so I may be wrong/formatted stuff wrongly.
1. Well-written. This article is very thorough. It contains a lot of information about the topic, explained in a more chronological fashion. I have already copy edited a few sections after reviewing the whole article, but I would need a bit more proofreading, because I think more copy editing is needed (I may have missed something.) I think this also fulfills ‘Broad in its coverage’, as this is written with a great sense of detail.
2. Verifiable with no original research.
I can see that very well. It is often written in the article itself where it is lifted, which clears things up a lot. Good!
3. Neutral + Stable. I found quite a bit of adverbs that may change the sense of the tone. I changed some during copyediting, but as some are not clear, I will be listing them down below.
4. Illustrations. I know this is a weird question to ask, but are there any possible images of the kidnapping that could be inserted into the page? While reading, I found a distinct lack of pictures in the article. Illustrations is one of the six points for a good article nomination, so I would like to know if there are. It would bolster the articles position as a GA.
Comments:
From the article, its is written ‘It was reported that the DKBA would no longer allow scam call operations in the areas they control, namely.[39]’
What does ‘namely’ mean for this sentence? Would it be more grammatically correct to shift the word ‘namely’ one word in front of ‘control’? Otherwise, this sentence becomes grammatically unnerving. I do not want to copyedit this, for it seems important.
From this article, it is written, ‘ and at the prompt of Thai officials repeated his thanks in Chinese, emphasizing that "he wishes to return to Thailand" and that "Thailand is very safe".[26]
What is the purpose of saying that “Thai officials repeated his thanks” and had added emphasis? The added phrases present the Thai officials in a slightly bad light, and does not sound neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldwideParasol (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Third opinion comment: As noted last year, I think the article focuses too much on small details instead of helping the reader understand the big picture, and relies too much on Chinese sources for information that is also supported by English-language international reporting. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: Are you interested in continuing with this nomination and addressing the above, or should this be closed as unsuccessful? Z1720 (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Z1720 I can only continue on this after mid of May. Close this first. I will address as much as possible when I can. – robertsky (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: If you are still interested in working on this (its past mid-May) feel free to keep going. If you would like to close this instead, please ping the reviewer and ask them to close. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- On it! Reading through and working on it. – robertsky (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: If you are still interested in working on this (its past mid-May) feel free to keep going. If you would like to close this instead, please ping the reviewer and ask them to close. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Robertsky: Are you interested in continuing with this nomination and addressing the above, or should this be closed as unsuccessful? Z1720 (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)