Talk:Kidnapping of Wang Xing/GA1

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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: Are you finished making the necessary changes, and is this ready for a re-review? Z1720 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@WorldwideParasol 'namely' was a stray word after shuffling around the content. For the 'at the prompt' part, I have shifted into the impact section and reworded to be more neutral. I have added an image for the scam center introduction. I am unable to find suitable images for the actor, as well as the arrests made. although https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80NlYO9YtIY is released under CC-BY license, the material was provided by the police, which makes the copyright suspect. – robertsky (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)