Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norodom Ranariddh/archive1

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2016 [1].

---

Norodom Ranariddh

Nominator(s): Mr Tan (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a Cambodian prince, politician and law academic. Ranariddh is the second son of Norodom Sihanouk, the late King of Cambodia. He served as the First Prime Minister of Cambodia between 1993 to 1997, under a two Prime Minister arrangement, together with Hun Sen as the Second Prime Minister. He was also the 3rd President of the National Assembly of Cambodia, serving between 1998 till 2006. The article has been promoted to GA sometime back, done many rounds of copyediting, checking, as well as a good round of Peer Review. I do not see why there is any reason that I should hold back this article any longer, and all are welcome to appraise and critique. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Phase 1

Comments This is a very good article, on an area of learning where we have very few FAs. Nevertheless, it may need more work, and while I will do my best to help during the FAC, it remains to be seen if that can be fully done. I think the two main difficulties are lack of context and various infelicities of prose.

Extended content

Lede Since you are allowed a fourth paragraph, consider splitting the first paragraph after the first two sentences. Hmm....When I was drafting the lead, my thought was to try to give each of the paragraphs an approximately equal size, partly for aesthetics and partly for Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Paragraphs, whereby concerns were mentioned on very short paragraphs. Anyway, I wrote the lead using Barack Obama as the reference point... Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Is there a reason Prime Ministers is capped? I agree that First Prime Minister and Second same, should be. I've reduced the "Prime Ministers" to small caps, throughout the text where I thought they were applicable, using Elizabeth II (the Queen vs queen) and Obama's (President vs president) as examples. However, the "First Prime Minister" is an official title, and I feel that they should be retained in big caps. Please feel free to reduce them to small caps if you feel that there are other parts that are also supposed to be reduced. Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) It may not be obvious to Americans what a "law researcher" or "law lecturer" is. Perhaps I hyperlink the "researcher" and "lecturer" articles? Mr Tan (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC) I'd backtrack here - these are common words and it would seem to be an exaggeration to hyperlink them (pardon me). I think, if readers have trouble difficulties figuring out common terms, then it would be the duty of the dictionary to enlighten the readers. Think of the case as to should we even hyperlink the word for example, Relationship? A relationship can be of a sexual/intimate nature, work-based nature, family nature. Sometimes it's apparent from the context, as we often point out. As you can see, the duty of the lead is to provide an overview, while details are meant for the article body. I think, so long as R's role as a researcher and academic is spelt out clearly in the main text, it should suffice. Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " with the Cambodian People's Party (CPP)." I can guess what this refers to but this phrase hangs off the back of the sentence without playing a proper part in its structure. Shifted this phrase to the centre of the sentence. Looks more appropriate? ..... Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "publicly disputed" I'd be blunt and say "publicly argued" I thought of "arguing" as a verbal action, and "disputing" would be a more neutral choice of word. Anyway, I"ll accept... Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "over issues that ranged from the implementation of construction projects, signing of property development contracts to their rival alliances with the Khmer Rouge." there's an issue surrounding the comma, which may need to be replaced by an "and". Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) " Ranariddh briefly challenged" maybe "initially" for "briefly" OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh was seen as a potential successor to Sihanouk as the next King of Cambodia," delete "the next" as surplusage. Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "forcing" Ranariddh/him. Unless there's a gun to his head, I think "causing" better. YMMV, but "forcing" in my view is overused in the media. Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "which selected Sihamoni to succeed Sihanouk in 2004." possibly which in 2004 selected Sihamoni as Sihanouk's successor" OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) " In March 2007, Ranariddh was found guilty of both charges and sentenced to imprisonment, which were commuted after he received a pardon in September 2008." what does "were" refer to? Rephrased. Hope it looks clearer now Mr Tan (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Early life " primary school at Norodom School " can the duplication be avoided? Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh enrolled in the undergraduate programme of law at the University of Paris. In Paris," Was it the Sorbonne? Also note 2x Paris The Sorbonne was not mentioned in anyway within Mehta's source, and I hence I can't say for sure. To do so, it may lead to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. Maybe I cite one of the phrases from the source, "...I went to the University of Paris for only one year because I was not very successful in studying in Paris, you see." Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC) " differing lifestyle norms " I'd make it clearer what you are talking about here. The source states...."...He acquired the image of a playboy in the year he spent in Paris where, he admitted, he neglected his studies because of the social distractions. "It was not a question of girlfriends, it was a question of a change of lifestyle," he said. "It was very difficult to move from a boarding school where you had to be very disciplined, to the university where you were very, very free. There was a lot of freedom, you know. There was no system of control. In high school the teachers spelt out all the lessons, but in university it was a different style. Life in Paris, if you are not conscious enough, is not at all suitable for serious study." I've changed the phrase to "which he attributed to the social distractions that he encountered in Paris" - would that be better?.... Mr Tan (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Entry "After being persuaded by his father, Ranariddh eventually joined FUNCINPEC in June 1983" not sure you need both "after" and "eventually" Removed "eventually" Mr Tan (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Make clearer whether the "personal representative" was a government or party office. Well for example, Mehta (2001) - p. 67 states that "His first appointment was that of the personal representative of Sihanouk in Asia." One US congress paper, also sees Ranariddh signing off as "Norodom Ranariddh, Personal Representative of Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia and Asia." You may wish to refer to [2], which has a snippet preview. In my opinion, it would be unnecessarily long to append "Samdech Preah Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia and Asia" part to the prose, which may make it more confusing. This was Ranariddh's official position between 1983 till 1985, based on available sources. From the context, FUNCINPEC was still a resistance party at the time, and was not a government party as yet. Mr Tan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "on an interim basis at the United Nations" this also hangs off the sentence disconcertingly. / It's a bit vague what the function of the SNC was. I thought that was the best way to define the role of the SNC. I agree that it appears a bit vague, but I suppose the vagueness is inherent in its nature. I would recommend you to read Widyono's source at pp. 34-35 [3], and also [4] - p. 65. Basically, the SNC was an organisation which represented sovereign interests at the United Nations between 1990 till 1993, but it "delegated" day to day administration of Cambodia to UNTAC. If you have any proposals to make it better, I would be very keen to jointly consider with you.... Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) The "Initial Years" section needs more context. I doubt many people who will read this article from outside Cambodia are familiar with the system of government. I can't personally tell if Ranariddh is getting these office because of competence, parentage, or a combination. If I interpret your issue of context correctly, I suppose one area of your concern might be the text be "In March 1985, Ranariddh was appointed the inspector-general of the Armee Nationale Sihanoukiste (ANS), the armed forces of FUNCINPEC. In January 1986, Ranariddh was promoted to commander-in-chief and chief-of-staff for ANS." From the two sentences, you may be thinking who had actually appointed Ranariddh to the posts. From my contact time with the resources available, we can assume that it was probably his father, Sihanouk. The closest source that came to imply that Sihanouk elevated his son to the positions maybe found at Mehta (2001), p. 184 - [After he was removed in a coup in 1970, he persuaded Ranariddh to join him in his campaign to topple the Lon Nol regime. Sihanouk saw in Ranariddh a potential leader a quality he realised was missing in his other children. Ranariddh was elevated to the rank of Inspector General of the armee nationale sihanoukienne (ANS) in March 1985. He was appointed Commander-in-Chief, and Chief of Staff of the ANS in January 1986. Sihanouk's reliance on Ranariddh only grew after the signing of the Paris peace accord in 1991 that ended the civil war. The crowning glory was when Ranariddh became the head of his father's party, Funcinpec.] However, the source did not explicitly state that Sihanouk was personally involved in the promotion, and other sources that I have so far came across such as Narong, Ranariddh's autobiography only stated his appointments without really attributing to who did the promotions. If I were to slip in "Sihanouk promoted his son to the position of inspector general" and so on, and there is some other editors with the same sources do a spotcheck, I might be faulted for Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text.E2.80.93source_integrity. Mr Tan (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC) In line with the material provided from the sources, I have expanded a little more on Ranariddh's entry into FUNCINPEC in 1983. Hope this helps! Mr Tan (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "attacks and killings of low-level party officials from government troops, who were wary of FUNCINPEC's influence in the country" Why? And there's being wary and then there's killing people. Rephrased the sentence - hope the point looks clearer now Mr Tan (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "chief-de-mission" is this anything like a chef-de-mission? OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "not to use Sihanouk's name for the election" maybe "for the election" should be "during the campaign". Added the word Mr Tan (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "threatened to secede eight eastern provinces from Cambodia" Can secede be used to refer to something else besides the subject? I can't figure out what you are proposing to amend for this point....to me, the sources states very clearly that Chakrapong and Sin Song plotted and led secession campaign in June 1993. You may wish to directly look at Google Books [5] Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Head of State" lower case (2x) I have reduced the second one, considering the sentence structure, but the first one should be kept. The "Head of State" is a formal position, just like the King and Prime Minister. If this is to be reduced, then the "King" may also needs to be reduced. Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "and completed in early September 1993." needs "was" before completed. OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) More once I see how these go down.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks! OK - I have addressed some of the issues which you have raised, and will look through the points by-and-by. Personally, I am amendable to revisiting a point more than once if need be. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to bring up additional points which you feel needs ratification or clarification. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Update: I have looked into all issues pointed out above, and am welcome to all fellow editors in suggesting, or pointing out more areas that can be improved further. I also welcome everybody to express their thoughts on this article's FA-worthiness. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Resuming. Due to travel and commitments to do other reviews, and the fact that this is requiring considerable comment by me, which takes time, this is going to be piecemeal: Lede response: I think you have to consider if you are going to be able to draw the reader into the article with a short opening paragraph, or a long one. Symmetry and even paragraphs are all well and good, but we are trying to transmit information. I don't agree that a starting paragraph of moderate length would compromise drawing a reader's attention as compared to a short one. If so, then this would imply that other FAs besides Barack Obama, but also those of Benjamin Harrison and Calvin Coolidge should need serious reconsideration. My original lead (prior to 17 Dec) has a lead that is based on Obama's style. I"ll concede on this point, as I have an impression that quite a number of articles such as Elizabeth II and John McCain have short starting paragraphs. While I have done as you have suggested, but personally, I don't really agree on this. As Wikipedia is a "free to edit" place, we should also think of making lasting edits. Perhaps, one, two or more years down the road, some unscrupulous editors can just merely siphon off the 3 lead paragraphs into an independent section, which is against Wikipedia:MoS. The fate of this article, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu's lead, is exactly what I am concerned with. I think using this format, would make it more tempting to unscrupulous editors to make such edits like Thieu's...... Mr Tan (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC) FAs, like other articles, tend to deteriorate over time from edits unless maintained. I'm not sure what to tell you about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Never mind, let us just say that I don't agree with this suggested edit, but I"ll accept for now. Mr Tan (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Initial years I think Bangkok does not need a country inline. I remembered somewhere (either in one of the GA or PR reviews) that as a matter of clarity, it would be good to provide the country after the city. Not all readers might be able to link a city to a country, hence the context-setting.... Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) If the city's famous enough, it isn't necessary. I think it's famous enough, but if you feel otherwise, I won't press the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) This subsection seems rather dry, containing only R's appointments. Did he ever speak to the media? Do we know his views on events during the decade plus covered by this section. I recalled that there were a few newspaper articles that Ranariddh used to give his opinion on the state of tripartite talks at that time. However, as I thought that they were not really significant, I thought that it would be better not to include them, as he was still not very notable during this point of his career. However, since you have raised this issue, I will run through the reference materials and add in one or two lines on this.... Mr Tan (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Update Hi Wehwalt, I have gone through the reference materials, and while Ranariddh did sporadically give one or two interviews here and there, I'm afraid to say that there's really very little to say about his career between 1983 till 1990, although he did a couple of things mentioned in Mehta's biography. Examples (1) Making a brazen attempt into PRK-controlled territory in 1986 (2) Brokering peace talks between Sihanouk and Hun Sen - it was a claim that he made, not backed by any other sources; (3) Making a visit to the US to meet with President Bush for additional arms to the ANS, a request was initially accepted, but later rejected in 1990. (4) A Singapore press report on a split within ANS/FUNCINPEC, with Ranariddh saying that there were "6000 troops in Cambodia" (which, in my opinion, is not really relevant for the purposes of a biographical article) [6] As you can see, he was not really a major personality as yet during this period of time (1980s). Furthermore, the information that I have gathered are so far quite vague and incomplete - just one isolated piece of information for each event, it would be difficult to write them coherently without making points "hangs off the sentence disconcertingly", concerns which you have expressed earlier. I would think that the highlight of Ranariddh's life career would be the 1990s, when he won the 93 elections, becoming Prime Minister and most notably, the 1997 armed clashes (or coup), in which he was ousted from power. Doing a quick run through of the news sources attributed to him at [7], you may wish to note that 90-95% of news sources are about him from the 1990s. Thus, I can safely say that he is barely notable during the 1980s. With all these in mind, and keeping the cohesiveness of the prose in mind, I would think it would be best to leave the section as it is - besides copyedits, in view of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balancing_aspects on notability and the availability of sufficient/complete information Mr Tan (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC) 1993 " FUNCINPEC started to criticise the CPP in its governance of the country, provoking much consternation from the latter." This may seem odd to a Western reader, where it is the opposition's job to criticise the government. I think, you need to note that criticisms started as a prelude to the 1993 Cambodian general elections, when both parties (FCP and CPP) were about to compete against each other. They were on opposing sides back then. Perhaps for your understanding, the relevant source states: "There were no real obstacles," he said. "Hun Sen controlled everything, and the atmosphere in Phnom Penh was normal. There was no immediate threat. But after we transformed Funcinpec from a movement into a political party, we were very aggressive in our words against Hun Sen. When Hun Sen saw clearly that the alliance [between Funcinpec and the CPP] would not work anymore, relations worsened." ... There was little to smile about when it came to the vexed alliance of Funcinpec and Hun Sen's CPP. Their political agreement lay in tatters following allegations that the latter party had intimidated and murdered candidates of Funcinpec. Ranariddh said that agreement between them was "in a bad shape". For its part, the CPP accused Funcinpec of being financed by the Khmer Rouge. But Ranariddh said: "Please do not believe I have got US$6 million from Mr Pol Pot." ... Mr Tan (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC) It may need a little more context, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) I think there are a few ways I can approach this issue. Firstly, I can remove the second part of the affected phrase, but I guess readers would probably be wondering "FUNCINPEC started to criticise the CPP in its governance of the country". "And so, what about it?" kind of thoughts. Secondly, I can also propose writing this (note the bolded part) "At the same time, FUNCINPEC started to criticise the CPP in its governance of the country, provoking much consternation from the latter which had maintained coordial ties with FUNCINPEC since 1991.", but it appears to me that readers would be wondering further down the road "what about "coordial ties"?" As I see it, it probably ends up with a story that "snowballs" the more as we elaborate... As much as we can try to make all the contexts conjoin and be comprehensive, nothing can be "waterproof". Personally, I think the best way would be to leave this point as it is. But if you strongly feels that it needs to be attended to, I"ll take either of the 2 approaches which you think best.... Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "declared their opposition to the announcement" possibly "to the plan" rather than "to the announcement" OK Mr Tan (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "threatened to secede eight eastern provinces from Cambodia." I don't think that "to secede" can be used in this way, you can't secede someone else, all you can do is secede yourself. Changed to: "to secede eight eastern provinces from the rest of Cambodia" Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "and included an agreement" this is a sufficiently different subject than the earlier part of the sentence and so probably should start a new sentence. Co-premiership "out of fear in igniting a civil war with the CPP" of rather than in. OK. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "mutually agreeing on most policy decisions made[42] until early 1996.[43]" Reading this, it seems to me that source 43 must contain the information in 42, just time limited to 1996. Does it? Yes. I gave double quote just to be on the safe side, not wanting to be caught over "text source integrity" issues as far as possible. As Source 42 does not explicitly indicate that the honeymoon ended in early 1996. Source 42: "...the state during the 1993-95 period and partly with a less violent society. The coalition government functioned better than previous regimes. The two Prime Ministers agreed on major policies. Ranariddh worked well with Hun Sen to the extent that he was even willing to silence or purge his own dissenting party members. Moreover, the state did not face a threat from Sihanouk and the rebels, as the Khmer Republic did." Source 43: "Until recently, Ranariddh had echoed Hun Sen's enthusiasm for the coalition government. Together they had shared the glory, the lucrative contracts and at least formally the power as well. ..." It's unclear why joining the Francophonie was controversial. Expanded somewhat - hope it looks clearer now. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh and Hun Sen jointly applied to make the country a member" wasn't the country actually applying, and the two just officials signing on its behalf? The sources states as follows: "Prince Norodom Ranariddh and Hun Sen, co-chairmen of Cambodia's interim administration, wrote a letter on July 28 to Head of State Prince Norodom Sihanouk, asking for his advice. "The provisional government sees the proposal for full membership to the Association of French Speaking Countries as important and useful for our country at this moment," the letter said." Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Maybe "joined in an application" for "applied?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) " technical assistance in supporting Cambodia's language curricula" This seems vague Never mind, I"ll remove that point, replacing it with another that can be more clearly explained. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "As Ranariddh saw it, these countries are characterised by hybrid regimes, active economic interventionism and limited press freedom, served as good models to propel Cambodia's socio-economic growth." There's a grammar issue here, possibly replacing "are" with a comma would do it. That was the original form Brian did while he did CE, as I thought a second comma after 2 words looks inappropriate. Anyway I've restored the point here. Mr Tan (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Well, there's still an issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) The mentions of Singapore Malaysia and Indonesia can surely be limited to once here. And it seems to me you are running around the point. He felt that Cambodia should worry about economic development first and human rights later. How do you suggest in going about condensing the content so that the countries maybe mentioned once? To me, I can only think of removing a part or a whole of this sentence, [In the initial months of the administration, Ranariddh actively courted political leaders from various regional countries, including Indonesia,[47] Singapore[48] and Malaysia, with a view to encourage investment in Cambodia.], but doing so can leave a gap in context... Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Just say he admired S M and I, and invited leaders from those countries. That sort of thing. That way you are keeping relevant content together.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "As the chairman of the CDC, Ranariddh gave his approval to at least 17 business contracts submitted by Malaysian businessmen between August 1994 and January 1995." there's no hint as to how significant this is. I thought the next sentence after this explains the significance - in the sense that, the nature/type of contracts that were awarded? Mr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC) " luxury cruiser" possibly "luxury cruise ship" as "cruiser" as regards ships, is ambiguous. We have articles on most cruise ships, do we know the ship's former name before being brought to Cambodia? From the source, the cruise liner is "Heritage". I checked the disambig page for "Heritage", but I can't see anyone pointing to a cruiser or a ship.... Mr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Cambodian government was unable ... were eager" Depending on ENGVAR, either singular or plural might be right. Both are not correct. Removed the "were". I"ll take the Cambodian government as a single entity. Mr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "more trees continued to be fallen" felled for fallen. OKMr Tan (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Conflicts "but both prime ministers became uncomfortable working with Rainsy, because of his pursuit of corruption allegations from within the government" uncomfortable may be too sympathetic a term. What word do you propose to change? Sources: [8], [9] "Rainsy's questionings sowed unhappiness from the Ranariddh" huh? Corrected Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "who expelled Rainsy from FUNCINPEC in May 1994.[62] The following month, Ranariddh introduced a parliamentary motion to remove Rainsy as a Member of Parliament (MP) in June 1995.[66]" There seems to be an error in dates here, or perhaps it is inadequately explained, as "the following month" seems to me to be June 1994. Sorry - an honest mistake, corrected Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Hun Sen submitted a government circular to reinstate January 7, the anniversary of the liberation of Phnom Penh by the Vietnamese forces from the Khmer Rouge, as a national holiday. Ranariddh had complied by countersigning the circular, which incurred the ire of Sihanouk and several FUNCINPEC leaders" It may not be obvious to readers what "countersigning" did, nor the nature of R's compliance. "adding his signature"? I think the compliance was part of the still-good working relationship which Ranariddh and Hun Sen still had at that point of time, but it's not explictly stated or explained in the sources. Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Complying is generally in response to a request. Possibly "agreed" or "concurred" might be better. Done Mr Tan (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "bordering Vietnam" surely unnecessary. It's necessary - otherwise context would appear ambiguous. Sources: [10], [11] "Ranariddh intended to test Hun Sen's response over his accusations, of which the latter chose to remain quiet" multiple grammar problems, "response" and "over" do not match, and I'm not sure where the "of which" is coming from. Changed "over" to "to". Will be glad if you can fix the "of which" if you think it still looks inappropriate. Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) " for which he had signed an earlier agreement with Ariston in January 1995" "earlier" can be deleted, it is implied. OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "In an apparent act of retaliation" I think an inline source necessary here. OK Mr Tan (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "in the country, citing the absence of casino laws in the country" 2x "in the country", should be avoided. Changed to "by-laws"? Mr Tan (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "arranging a meeting" If R was there, then the language is fine, though R's presence should be mentioned. If he was not, then "arranging a" should be deleted. OK, done Mr Tan (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "CPP's outstanding delays in appointing FUNCINPEC district officials as district chiefs." I am not sure what the "outstanding" adds here. Sorry...wrong choice of word Mr Tan (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC) More as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC) All addressed (except for one) Mr Tan (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Addressed the final point. Mr Tan (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Phase 2

Extended content

Conflicts "in May 1995.[62] The following month, Ranariddh introduced a parliamentary motion to remove Rainsy as a Member of Parliament (MP) in June 1995.[66]" I would strike either "the following month" or "in June 1995". Ok Mr Tan (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "and questioned the CPP's of their delays in appointing FUNCINPEC district officials as district chiefs." this doesn't make sense. Sorry, typo Mr Tan (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "A month after the FUNCINPEC congress, Ranariddh, while vacationing in Paris, attended a meeting with Sihanouk, Rainsy, Chakrapong and Sirivudh on 27 April." Since we know that the congress happened in March, saying a month after that, and also the date, seems redundant. If I remove the month, the sentence structure would appear disjointed. I would prefer the date, as specific information is more useful Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Sihanouk issued a declaration praising Hun Sen and the CPP and stating that FUNCINPEC had no intention of leaving the coalition government and dissociated themselves from anti-CPP protests" Two issues. There are multiple "ands" and also it is not very clear who "themselves" refers to. The sentence, basically, is confusing. I"ll remove the protests issue, since it is not found in this area of the text. Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "his discomfort in his relations " I'm not sure you have discomfort in relations. Sounds vague, I agree. I changed the word, "tenacious" Mr Tan (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "of absconding construction funds" I don't think absconding is the proper verb here. Source: "In addition, he said that FUNCINPEC's Ek Sereywath, the weapons procurer for RCAF, had failed to deliver the procurement order he was entrusted with, and that Ing Kiet had failed to purchase construction material with the $1 million allocated to him..."[12], from the source, I thought this was the right word to surmise Hun Sen's accusations against Ing Kieth. Mr Tan (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Conflict escalation. "On 11 October 1996, Ranariddh visited Ieng Sary in his fiefdom at Pailin, which prompted Hun Sen to make similar visits on 23 October and 11 December 1996." I would delete the second 1996. He made 2 visits on 2 seperate days. Added a "two" Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "conveyed a threat" maybe, "threatened" OKMr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) and stated his intent to lead the NUF in competing against the CPP in the general elections scheduled to be held in 1998" I would delete "in competing" as implied the second paragraph seems very inconsistent on whether there is a "the" before the initials of a political party. Ok. I like to seek your advice here. My impression was that news articles, videos often use to refer "....the CPP.", but very seldom "...the FUNCINPEC" except for rare cases. It just came to me intuitively that the word "the" is used just before CPP, based on what I have read so far, and using "the FUNCINPEC" just kind of sounds wrong. What do you suggest? Sample sentences from the prose: (1) "Ranariddh became the First Prime Minister of Cambodia while Hun Sen, who was from the CPP, became the Second Prime Minister." (2) The CPP carried out attacks and killings against low-level FUNCINPEC officials using police forces under their command, .... (3) When Sihanouk formed FUNCINPEC in 1981, Ranariddh initially declined his father's invitation to join the party as he disagreed with its association with the Khmer Rouge. – If I remove "the" from one and two, it would seems kind of wrong to me, like wise adding "Sihanouk formed the FUNCINPEC". Please feel free to advise, if you wish, remove "the" accordingly from parts of the prose as deemed appropriate.... Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) " In response, Ranariddh wrote a letter in late February 1997 to Ariston Berhad's president Chen Lip Keong, to declare the agreements signed with Sok An as null and void." this seems unnecessarily wordy. Maybe "In response, Ranariddh declared the agreements signed with Sok An null and void in a February 1997 letter to ..." OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) You should not have "In response" following "in response". OK - accidentally duplicated while I was expanding the prose Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh's letters, and in April 1997 he separately sent a letter to Mahathir to reassure him" I would change, after the comma to "and in April 1997 he wrote to Mahathir assuring him ..." OK Mr Tan (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "should the CPP win in the subsequent general election" maybe, "should the CPP win he next general election" OK Mr Tan (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) " they jointly communiqué pledging mutual support" This reads very oddly. Sorry, I missed out on impt words Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) You are using communique as a verb and I don't think you can in that manner. Possibly "they issued a joint communique pledging mutual support" "Sihanoukville" why linked? Removed Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Some of the arms ..." this sentence strikes me as unnecessary detail. Reworded that phrase. Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "between bodyguard troops separately working for Ranariddh and Hun Sen" maybe "between Ranariddh's and Hun Sen's bodyguards." OK. I thought of writing in this manner initially as I thought it would make the point clearer Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure of the implications of the word "aligned" nor why it is suddenly being heavily-used. The soldiers in the Cambodian Armed Forces (during the 1990s) maybe classified into 2 groups, one group professes loyalty to politicians from the Cambodian People's Party, another to politicians to FUNCINPEC. It's very unique to this case, while politics and military are technically two seperate issues, but in this case, political loyalties have seeped through their way into the Armed forces, and research sources in this period of Cambodian history uses similar lingo. Alternatively, I can opt to use the terms "pro CPP troops" and "pro FUNCINPEC troops"? Mr Tan (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Mention who they are up front, and be reasonably consistent so that the reader always knows who is being talked about. Doesn't the phrases "RCAF troops factionally aligned to FUNCINPEC...", "The rocket launchers were seized by Cambodian Air Force officers aligned to the CPP, ..." clear enough? The whole picture is this - There is this Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF), which is officially a single entity but there are 2 seperate factions, one to the CPP and another to FUNCINPEC. The factions are not official, but many historians have noted that it existed during the 1990s. Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " suffered major casualties after further fighting" more likely, during it. OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Exile "simultaneously accusing him" Simultaneously is probably not needed. OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " Ranariddh snubbed at Hun Sen's suggestion, and threatened to boycott the elections if he was required to face any of such charges" possibly "Ranariddh threatened to boycott the election if he was required to face charges." OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) You previously called O'Smach as O Smach Removed Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "whose charges were subsequently nullified after he received a pardon from Sihanouk" perhaps "but was pardoned by Sihanouk." A Pardon does not necessarily exonerate a person, it may just merely reduce a sentence. Hence I thought this should be clarified. Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh was convicted by the military court" I would add in absentia and say "a military court" as you have not previously mentioned one. OK - but I added the word after the "sentencing" as this word is used in cases like "sentenced to death in absentia..." Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh returned to Cambodia at the end of March 1998 to lead FUNCINPEC's election campaign.[105] The campaign focused on pro-monarchical sentiments[106] and anti-Vietnamese rhetoric.[107] " the double use of "campaign" can be avoided by combining the two sentences. OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "hindrances," not a common word, esp in this context. Propose "obstacles" OK Mr Tan (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "as well as its supporters facing blockades to rallies" maybe "and its supporters often had trouble getting to rallies" OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) The number of seats in parliament won by the other major parties should be stated, as it is more meaningful than raw vote. OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "while the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), which was renamed from the KNP and led by Sam Rainsy," to avoid too obviously stating what is probably fairly obvious (that Rainsy led the party named for him), suggest that after the comma it be "which had been renamed from Rainsy's KNP" OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "carried out voter intimidation" maybe "intimidated voters" OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "He summoned Hun Sen, Ranariddh and Rainsy, for discussions aimd at a political solution." the comma after Rainsy should probably go. OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Did the 24 September meetings take place, or were they canceled? It's unclear if the rocket was fired whilst going to or coming from. The meeting did take place in the end, but because of the incident it was very hostile. Anyway I don't think it was very important to state whether the meeting occured in the end - though I have added a little more details about the firing incident. Source: [13] They left the country for what, two weeks? I think that if the police threat was enough to make them go, you have to say what made them feel able to return. Expanded, hope this looks clearer now Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "which saw Ranariddh negotiating with Hun Sen and Chea Sim for the structure of a new government." maybe "on for "from" OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) President "According to Indian academic Harish Mehta, the creation of the Senate was to provide an alternative platform to pass legislation in the event that Ranariddh exerts his influence as the President of the National Assembly to veto laws" the present tense is incorrect "exerts", should be "exerted". I'd also change the final two words to "block legislation". OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "the FUNCINPEC army" Are these the bodyguards of previous sections? If so, be consistent. OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "He also participated in efforts to seek better relations with Vietnam" I would strike the word "seek". It's implied. Changed to "foster". But you need a linking word, otherwise the sentence structure would be jarring Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "onwards as fresh incidents of border clashes erupted" maybe "amid renewed border clashes" would cut to the point. OK Mr Tan (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh steered FUNCINPEC towards political rapprochement with the CPP, and actively discouraged FUNCINPEC ministers and MPs from criticising them. During the party's congress in March 2001, Ranariddh declared the CPP an "eternal partner"" Ranariddh is making the CPP singular, but you have it as a plural noun (implied from "criticising them" in the previous sentence. I'd rephrase the final clause to avoid the clash, maybe by deleting "with the CPP" earlier in the sentence and changing the final clause to "from criticising the CPP". This also gives the reader credit for some intelligence, because the reader surely knows or can infer with whom the reconciliation is supposed to be. You made a good point on this, I've amended slightly. Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh's leadership as early as 1999, when rumours of Ranariddh accepting bribes from the CPP" to avoid the repetition, suggest after the comma, "when rumours he had accepted bribes from the CPP" OK Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "The following month, Khan Savoeun, a senior FUNCINPEC leader accused You Hockry, a fellow party leader, of engaging in corruption and nepotism in his capacity as the co-Minister of the Interior, which factors had contributed to the party's poor election performance" this can be boiled down to "The following month, senior party leader Khan Savoeun accused You Hockry, the co-Minister of the Interior, or corruption and nepotism, acts Savoeun said had helped alienate voters" OK Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) The final two sentences of the second paragraph can be merged to avoid repetitions. You mean "Both new parties attracted sizeable numbers of FUNCINPEC defectors, who were apparently unhappy with Ranariddh's leadership. The defections caused Ranariddh to fear that FUNCINPEC would fare poorly in the 2003 general elections."? I don't see repetitions here Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "had engineered its election victory by manipulating vote counts and intimidating the electorate" maybe "had won through fraud and voter intimidation" OK Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Hun Sen rejected their demands, and several FUNCINPEC's activists were subsequently assassinated." I think you need to show a connection here, sourced inline, otherwise it's basically after a discussion of the 1963 World Series "The Yankees lost the World Series, and President Kennedy was subsequently assassinated." I"ll remove the assasinations then. From what I read, political assasinations against FUNCINPEC and SRP politicians appear to come from the CPP, but they can't be conclusively linked to Hun Sen. Mr Tan (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Expulsion "On 2 March 2006, the national assembly" why the sudden lower case? Changed Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "after FUNCINPEC party reports have suggested" delete "have" OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "which led to Ranariddh was ouster from his position as FUNCINPEC's President.[133] In turn, he was given the titular position of "historic president"." should start "which led to Ranariddh's ouster ..." president should be lower case; in turn should be in return. Changed Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " Nhek Bun Chhay justified Ranariddh's ouster to deteriorating relations between the latter with Hun Se" suggest "attributed" for "justified" and instead of "deteriorating relations between the latter with Hun Sen" to "his deteriorating relations with Hun Sen. You use "his" later in the sentence to refer to R. so it doesn't increase ambiguity. OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Recent etc. Ranariddh was expelled from the National Assembly as its MP. Possibly "the National Assembly expelled Ranariddh as an MP" OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) --Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Will look through all concerns and arrears during Christmas. Mr Tan (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC) And the rest. "Ranariddh's half-brother Chakrapong was also expelled from the party, and joined the NRP as the party's deputy president" is this relevant? Since Chakrapong has not been mentioned to this point, why bother now? Or is he the Norodom Chakrapong previously mentioned? I'm not certain of naming practices. Yes, press Ctrl + F - I had mentioned Chakrapong in several instances. Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "before the court's sentencing" probably just "before sentencing" or "before the sentencing" would be ample. OK Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " communicated to NRP party members" with, not to, unless it was one-way. it's one-way, from the source. "Though stuck in self-imposed exile overseas, party President Prince Norodom Ranariddh addressed, by long-distance telephone call, the approximately 2,000 on hand Thursday." Mr Tan (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Was the pardon how the possible secret deal was consummated? If there are RS that think that, it might be wise to put the two events in the same paragraph. Do the RS that talk about the "secret deal" connect the two? I can't figure out what you meant by "RS". But if I got you correctly, I would prefer to keep the first sentence of the new paragraph "In September 2008, Ranariddh received a royal pardon from Sihamoni for his embezzlement conviction..." as it is, because it sort-of illustrate a new chapter of his post-turbulence life in exile (2007-8). Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "in accusing the Election Commission for election irregularities" possibly "in faulting the Electoral Commission of irregularities". (to avoid the clash of "accusing/accusations" The complaint was regarding the commission itself, right? OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) The CRPP and People's sections are not long enough to justify separation, at least at this time. Suggest they be combined under an appropriate title of your choice. I don't get you for the "People's section". But for the "Return to FUNCINPEC", I don't see any reason why it should be merged, as I do not see it being specified under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies or anywhere else, unless you can point out to me that it's recommended otherwise. As I see it, they are two very seperate, but significant events of Ranariddh's life and two seperate sections are justifiable from this view. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh launched a party congress" perhaps "held" for "launched" OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "He also managed to convince the congress" At least in American English, "managed to convince" is usually meant to disparage a decision and even hint that it was done in some nefarious way. I"ll remove "managed" - allow me to ask an off-the-cuff question....are you making the recommendations based on BrE or AmE standards? Hope to get an understanding here, as my impression is that people using two different varieties of English may have conflicting expectations on prose, I don't know.... Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Ranariddh was a recipient" as he's still alive, suggest "has been" for "was" OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "by the La Francophonie in March 2000." I would cut the "the" as the next word serves that purpose. OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Sihamoni is linked at I think the third or fourth use. I wonder if the secession discussion should be inserted chronologically among his political activities? I mean, it's all part of the same thing, plainly royalty are part of politics in a very active way in Cambodia. It will require a radical restructuring of the entire article. As I see it, the main sections are dedicated to Ranariddh's life and career. Ranariddh's succession candidacy was a side issue that came up on and off throughout his life. It's a side attraction, but still a notable enough issue to merit mention here as it has been discussed in academic texts and by pronouncements from the royal palace. As for the secession attempt by Chakrapong, while both Ranariddh and Chakrapong are brothers, I must say that the secession attempt is a political affair, not so much a matter of royalty. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) In December 2008, Sihamoni appointed Ranariddh as the President of the Supreme Privy Council of Cambodia. Ranariddh's royal appointment carries an honorary position that provides an equivalent rank to that of prime minister,[159] and during an interview in December 2010 Ranariddh revealed that his royal appointment entitles him to a monthly salary of three million rials." Suggest that the first full stop be made a comma, then "carrying an honorary rank equal to that of prime minister, and, according to Ranariddh in a December 2010 interview, a salary of three million rials a month." OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) " had indicate no preference" indicated, not indicate. This assumes they had no preference who should be king, not that they wanted no one to be king. OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) You are inconsistent in your capitalization of King I had edited earlier based in accordance to your concern: "Is there a reason Prime Ministers is capped?" For one, the word "King" maybe part of an official title, and for two, it maybe part of a noun within the sentence structure. I had changed them using Elizabeth II as reference, whereby "Queen" vs "queen" are alternately used. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Personal "have made such references from their discourse with him" maybe "have so stated after meeting with him" OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Possibly mention that Monineath is the queen mother. I already mentioned "who was Sihamoni's mother,"...would the sentence look a little too long if I add that in as well? Anyway, in Sep 2004 she was not yet the Queen Mother. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) The newspaper name needs italics OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) "Sihanouk possesses" past tense, surely. OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Family "in an explosion" what kind of explosion? Bomb? Water boiler? OK Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Raja Bori, as a film title, should be italicised each time it is mentioned (as it was in the previous section) That's it for now. I'll take another look once my colleagues have batted. I think Brianboulton was next. The article is good, but there's just a lot of prose issues and such that are going to need straightening out, and there's no point in my doing another pass through until they've looked at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Ok. I"ll look through the article another time over the next few days, taking into account all the suggestions and concerns that you have laid out above. Mr Tan (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC) I have looked through all suggestions laid out above and fixed where appropriate and necessary. If you feel that there still are jarring concerns that renders this article unfit for FA, please do not hesitate to express your concerns here, and I"ll be happy to try my best to discuss and work them out. Mr Tan (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Phase 3

I've made a second pass through and made a number of edits. I am prepared to support if they, for the most part, stand (I'm prepared to discuss any and all, but in general I think I've helped improve the article) and if the following additional comments are addressed.

Extended content

Further comments 1993 elections What was in Bangkok that R. would travel there? Should be mentioned to explain. I thought the follow up phrase "where he took charge of the party's diplomatic and political activities in Asia" explains sufficiently? Anyway, the book quote states: "moved to Bangkok in July 1983. They rented a spacious, plant-filled villa at Soi Prapini], off Sathorn Road. Living in the relative safety of Bangkok, they were just an hour away from Phnom Penh by air, and could keep an eye on goings-on in the Heng Samrin regime." I think that, from the phrase, as Bangkok is much closer to Phnom Penh than Paris, it was much more strategic and convenient to move to Bangkok to manage party from there as compared to Paris. But I don't think any further elaboration would be necessary. Mr Tan (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC) The UNTAC election rule not to name the king. The reason for this should be stated. Added a phrase to the back of the sentence. Hopefully this closes the circle... Mr Tan (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Head of state is inconsistently capitalised. Also prime minister. You did ask previously about this question "Is there a reason Prime Ministers is capped? I agree that First Prime Minister and Second same, should be.", and my reply was "I've reduced the "Prime Ministers" to small caps, throughout the text where I thought they were applicable, using Elizabeth II (the Queen vs queen) and Obama's (President vs president) as examples. However, the "First Prime Minister" is an official title, and I feel that they should be retained in big caps. Please feel free to reduce them to small caps if you feel that there are other parts that are also supposed to be reduced." You did not follow up on my reply and I assumed that what I amended was correct. Mr Tan (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC) So should all be used in big caps, or leave them all as it is? You appear to be giving conflicting signals on this part.... Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Co- "insider trading" Do you actually mean insider trading or some other form of corruption? I think it's a wrong choice of words on my part. Based on Wikipedia's article, that's too far off the cuff. If you read the source with the starting paragraph "But sources say, the Cambodian Development Council - the "one-stop-shopping" entity for foreign..." it is much more apparent that some sort of bribes or kickbacks are negotiated behind the scenes, though not directly published. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Ariston conceded the operations of the luxury cruiser, named Heritage, to Unicentral Corporation." I don't know what this means. Did the ship stay there? Did it go somewhere else? If it had no further connection to Cambodia, other than the occasional call, I'd say "Ariston chartered the cruiser, ..." Never mind, I"ll remove the final sentence altogether. My impression is that Ariston sort of "subcontracted" the main deal to Unicentral, though this has nothing directly to do with Ranariddh. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "provided a lucrative backdoor source of revenue" such as? "Cash" revenue. Brian had previously discussed this point specifically in his comments here @ FAC below. Mr Tan (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Escalation You might want to mention how the whole Iang Sary thing turned out, since you give the readers several sentences of setup, but you don't actually get to the point, which was, I understand, that Sary and his faction reintegrated into the political structure. The thing is, the Khmer Rouge between 1996-8 were also factionally divided, and two of the most prominent leaders to ally themselves with the Cambodian government were Khieu Samphan and Ieng Sary. While Khieu Samphan was pretty steadfast with his political sympathies with Ranariddh/FUNCINPEC at least until 1998, Ieng Sary vacilitated in his sympathies between the CPP and FUNCINPEC, and as you can see he entertained both rival PMs when they visited Pailin. At the point of December 1996, the sources appear to imply (but did not explicitly state) that Ieng Sary maintained friendly ties with both rival PMs. When Ranariddh was ousted in July 1997, Ieng Sary briefly denounced the violent clashes by the CPP against FUNCINPEC, but later changed his stance and opted to support Hun Sen. Khieu Samphan's troops at Anlong Veng, on the other hand, continued to support FUNCINPEC troops. On your suggestion, I have thought of incorporating some information on Ieng Sary's alliance with FUNCINPEC, but I'm not sure if it is a wise decision to do so. Firstly, there is no information on Ieng Sary's relations with Hun Sen or Ranariddh until July 1997, and that was the reason why I ended the paragraph with the helicopter shooting threat. Secondly, if you think it's necessary to elaborate further, then it would probably go into the subsection "Exile, return and 1998 elections". But I do not think that Ieng Sary continued to remain as primary party between Hun Sen and Ranariddh's relations after 1997 clashes, hence I thought it was not very worthwhile to mention it further. I think the main focus in Ranariddh's ouster after July 1997 would be his diplomatic efforts to secure political support with foreign leaders, and the internal events directly affecting Ranariddh. As for as Ieng Sary's relationship with FUNCINPEC/Ranariddh relations thereafter, I am of the opinion that any additional information elaborating switching of sympathies between Hun Sen and Ranariddh on the part of Ieng Sary, would be better off in the DNUM article or other ancillary articles. As I see it, I find it difficult in envisioning as to how I would not make the prose and context more convoluted and ambiguous if we may want to push for more information on this part... Mr Tan (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC) On afterthought, perhaps my insistence with specific dates makes the context harder to understand. I have rephrased the first paragraph, hopefully it looks more palatable and smoother now anyway.... Mr Tan (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Exit from FUNCINPEC and later You might want to explain why in 2006 they voted to make constitutional amendments easier etc, as an introductory sentence or two to this section. Worked on that. Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC) " and tendered his resignation as the president of NRP" is FUNCINPEC intended? you have not mentioned his being president of NRP. Done Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC) General question which should perhaps be mentioned when you mention the succession: why did Sihanouk abdicate? His article is vague on the subject. There were at least two instances when he wanted to abdicate, the first being in 1997 and the second in 2004 (which actually materialise), but over different reasons. I have worked on the 2004 already, will be working on the 1997 one soon. Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Notify me when I'm done. I'm going to be having limited internet so will not be on as much as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

All addressed, hopefully satisfactorily. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support I thought I had supported already, but it may have been lost in an edit conflict or some such. I also congratulate Mr Tam on fine work, and look forward to more of the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review

Sources review: I intend to add comments when Wehwalt finishes his pass, meantime I have looked at the sources and referencing:

Extended content

ref 48: The link goes not to the source article but to a procedures page. On clicking the appropriate button, I reached a page which informed me: "This article may only be viewed from the multimedia stations at NLB Libraries." This restriction needs to be noted within the citation. Dear Brian, I just did a check, should I use "registration" or "subscription"? Because as per Template:Cite_news#Subscription_or_registration_required, I don't think this scenario falls into either, as you can see from the comments, the Singapore library only allows readers to be physically present at the library to view the microfilms. For the purpose of indication, neither "registration" or "subscription", as the restrictions maybe removed upon paying a fee or something like that... Mr Tan (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Where no appropriate template exists, you have to make up your own note. I would simply add "(Restricted access)" to the source - the nature of the restriction is given on the source page, so a brief note should be sufficient. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Done Mr Tan (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC) A number of the citations show authors' names in capitals. This is contrary to MOS formats and the capitalisations should be removed even though, in some of the cases, the names are capitalised in the source. See refs 117, 121, 122, 132 and many more. Oh, I took the shortcut and "copy and pasted" the authors names from The Cambodia Daily w/o bothering to change them. Will fix them over the next few days...apologies lol Mr Tan (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC) All fixed Mr Tan (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC) In the bibliography it is not necessary to include countries in publisher locations; thus, "New York" will do, rather than "New York, United States of America". Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Also, "Great Britain (United Kingdom)" doesn't make sense. Routledge's headquarters are in London. Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) The Mehta entry in the bibliography appears to duplicate the book's title. Harish Mehta (the same author) wrote two books, "Strongman ---" and "Warrior Prince---", but they are published in different years, in 2013 and 2001. As for the citations, I believe that "Mehta (2001), p. 69" vs "Mehta (2013), p. 69" should be sufficient distinctive, given the years? Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I don't think I made my query clear. I was referring to this line in the bibliography: "Mehta, Harish C. & Julie B. (2013). Strongman: The Extraordinary Life of Hun Sen: The Extraordinary Life of Hun Sen. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International Asia Pte Ltd", which duplicates the words "The Extraordinary Life of Hun Sen". Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Done Mr Tan (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "National University of Singapore" is part of the publisher description. it is not the publisher's location. Fixed Mr Tan (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Subject to the above issues, I believe that all sources used in the article are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

All addressed Mr Tan (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

General comments: Tracing the serpentine, convoluted life and career of Ranariddh within the unfamiliar world of Cambodian politics is a difficult undertaking, and Mr Tan has done well in attempting it in less than 7,000 words. I have carried out some fairly extensive copyedits to polish the prose, and am left with a number of queries:

Extended content

Can you clarify the difference between the Supreme National Council of Cambodia (SNC), and United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC)? The SNC is something like the official face of an interim government Cambodia, while (technically) it "delegates" the responsibility of day-to-day governance of Cambodia to UNTAC. This is how I understand it. You may wish to refer to Widyono's source at [14], "The Supreme National Council (SNC) was established to serve as the "unique legitimate body and source of authority" in Cambodia throughout the transition period. ... The Paris Peace Agreements therefore stipulated that the SNC delegate all powers to UNTAC to implement the agreements." Another source, as described by Sebastian Strangio (Hun Sen's Cambodia), describes the relationship between the SNC and UNTAC as this: "The Paris Agreements created the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), which would take temporary control over the Cambodian state. Sovereignty would be temporarily vested in a 13-member Supreme National Council (SNC) consisting of del- egates from each of the four factions, with Prince Sihanouk serving as the body's sup- posedly “neutral” president." - Page 43 As there are at least two seperate, but very closely related bodies were created to govern Cambodia during this period of time, I know it can sound pretty confusing. But again, as this article is about Ranariddh's life, I thought of trying to explain the function of SNC / UNTAC in one sentence at most, and any additional elaboration should be the responsibility of the component articles, in my opinion. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) I am not suggesting a detailed explanation, merely a brief note inserted perhaps thus: "When the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) – a parallel administrative body with the STC – was formed in February 1992..." etc. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "According to Canadian geographer Philippe Le Billon, Ranariddh and Hun Sen were tacitly supportive of continued Khmer Rouge logging activities as it provided a lucrative source of revenue[22] to finance their own political activities". It is not clear from this how revenue raised by the Khmer Rouge's logging activities reached Ranariddh and Hun Sen. I can't provide the exact quote at the moment from the source for this, as I have returned the book to the library and I can only do so after around 11 January the earliest. But my impression is that the logging activities does provide profits. However, these profits did not go to the soverign coffers, but rather through backdoor (corrupt means) which was used to fund Ranariddh's political activities (for FUNCINPEC) and that of Hun Sen (CPP). Nevertheless, I did an online search on this, and there were other similar sources that gave very similar explanations. I can recommend you to read this source: [15], pp. 212-3, with the quote: " Likewise, given the power struggle within the Cambodian government between FUNCINPEC and the CPP, other foreign companies (particularly Malaysian Samling Corporation Sdn Bhd) were also able to benefit from logging concessions awarded by the Cambodian prime ministers (without consultation with the National Assembly),20 as both factions were competing to strengthen their power bases through income generated from the timber industry." I hope this sufficiently clarifies, though I can go back to look for the exact quote from the original source if you feel that it's necessary... Mr Tan (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC) You could say: "it provided a lucrative backdoor source of revenue", which would I think be sufficient clarification. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "A few days later, apparently to tone down dissatisfaction from party members, Ranariddh publicly accused the Vietnamese army of encroaching into the territories of four Cambodian provinces bordering Vietnam. As Widyono and the Khmer Rouge saw it, Ranariddh intended to test Hun Sen's response to his accusations, of which the latter chose to remain quiet." I found it impossible to work out what was going on here, and was particularly confused by "As Widyono and the Khmer Rouge saw it" When I was reading the page from Widyono's source at [16], Widyono (the book author) did state that "ironically, cladestine Khmer Rouge radio, the most vehement anti-yuon (Vietnamese) element, maintained that Ranariddh was clowning around." This was the position taken by the KR. But at the same time, Widyono did go on to input his own analysis by stating, "Actually, Ranariddh anti-Vietnam rhetoric was mainly meant for domestic consumption...." - I think to make things less confusing I shall remove the KR here. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) "In addition to Khmer Rouge-controlled areas, substantial logging also occurred in the remote northeastern province of Rattanakiri, predominantly populated by indigenous ethnic minorities collectively known as the Khmer Loeu." – how is this information relevant to Ranariddh? Agreed. I"ll remove this. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) "He declared that he was prepared to quarrel with Ranariddh over his public criticisms of Ing Kieth, while also chiding Ranariddh for not following through on his March threat to leave the coalition government, and calling him a "real dog". I found this comment muddled and unhelpful, and suggest it is dropped I think it's the issue of Hun Sen's move to establish diplomatic relations with S. Korea. I have replaced it with a continuation of Sihanouk's 27 April declaration to make the prose cause-and-effect link more apparent. As for the Ing Kieth part of the text, I think it's fine, as for the "March threat", I'm referring to Ranariddh's outburst on 22 March 1996. Hopefully it flows better now. Mr Tan (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC) You haven't actually changed the wording of the sentence to which I took exception. Whatever its intention, in my view it is an awkward and meaningless interjection and the article would be a lot better without it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) I think the Ing Kieth part of the sentence is the jarring part of the prose which compromises readability. I have removed that, and restructured the paragraph. However, I feel that the "real dog" criticism should stay, as it shows Hun Sen's verbal salvo in response to Ranariddh's March outburst, which marked a crucial turning point in their relations. Mr Tan (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC) I have significantly redrafted the final paragraph of the "Conflict escalation" section, as I couldn't make sense of it as it stood. I hope that what I have written is in accordance with what happened. Looks Ok so far. Mr Tan (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC) In the section "Expulsion from FUNCINPEC", there is no mention of Ranariddh's "expulsion", only of his deposition as party president and appointment to the titular position of "Historic President". That does not sound like expulsion. I"ll change it to "Exit" then. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) You still have "Following Ranariddh's expulsion..." OK Mr Tan (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "In September 2008, Ranariddh received a royal pardon from Sihamoni for his embezzlement conviction..." As you haven't mentioned Sihamoni's accession since the lead, and don't deal with this matter until later in the article, I suggest you ad a note along the lines: "...from Sihamoni (who had succeeded to the throne in October 2004)..." OK Mr Tan (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC) The image of Sinahouk's 2013 funeral is not in the right location chronologically. I can place this in the paragraph starting with "In September 2008, Ranariddh received a royal pardon...", but it will cause the text to break and become jaggered because there is the second image of Ranariddh in 2014. This is why I prefer to put images at the start of each section, for stylistics and symmetry. But if you feel it's really inappropriate, I'm fine with removing that 2013 image altogether as well. Mr Tan (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Three million riels sounds a lot, but I think it equates to about US$750. Some dollar equivalence, and the basis of conversion, would be useful. I just checked the exchange rate online, it stands at US$737. I had initially held back against adding the exchange rate, as you know that currencies maybe prone to fluctuation - the exchange rate today may not be the same as the next 2 years, and vice versa. But since you have pointed out, I have put it up. Mr Tan (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC) You need to cite a source for the conversion. Also, you can say "USD750", or "US$750" (I prefer the latter) but not USD$750. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Added http://www.nbc.org.kh/english/economic_research/exchange_rate.php for reference Mr Tan (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Four of Ranariddh's half-siblings by his mother and Chap Huot were killed during the years..." – during which years? Added the KR. Mr Tan (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC) When the above matters are resolved I will be minded to support the article's promotion. I note that as a result of my efforts at peer review and in more recent copyediting, I am the article's second heaviest contributor by no. of edits – although my total of 59 is dwarfed by Mr Tan's 682 and I have added no significant content, so I don't feel disqualified from giving a declaration. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC) I have addressed all comments stated above (save for perhaps half a point), hopefully satisfactorily. Still, nothing is set in stone, and my door is always open in looking into any further concerns which may otherwise continue to hinder this article's FA worthiness. (To Brianboulton/Wehwalt, thank you for your efforts and inputs. :)) Happy New Year to all! (Y) Mr Tan (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC) OK, and all good wishes to you, too – but it is premature to collapse the section while we are still in dialogue over issues, so I have reopened it for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) And of course to all, and to you. I am watching and getting ready for a second run through as soon as Brian and Mr Tan are in agreement.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC) All replies addressed and looked into so far. Mr Tan (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Support an excellent work, now I think ready for the star. Thank you for your patience, Mr Tan, and congratulations on a fine work indeed. We look forward to more.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Support: I think Mr Tan has moved sufficiently close to meeting my concerns for me to declare support for the article's promotion. For those used to western political systems the article is not always easy to follow, but it is better than most in explaining recent Cambodian history, and provides an informative who's who to characters whose names only infrequently crop up in western media. Congratulations to Mr Tan for his perseverence in bringing the article to its present standard. Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wugapodes

Disclosure: I was the GA reviewer for this article in September Support: I am impressed by the work done since I saw this at GAN. As someone unfamiliar with Cambodian politics, I found this article very accessible and the writing compelling. I don't know enough about the topic to speak to its comprehensiveness, but I can say I was not left wanting. My only two concerns are rather minor.

• First is, as I brought up in the GA review, MOS:PERCENT recommends writing out the word "percent" which isn't done.
• The second is the references section. It mixes shortened footnotes with full citations which I find unsightly, but I'm not sure of a better way to do it.

I have gone ahead and fixed the first, and would be willing to discuss the second as I realize I mostly gave a problem not a solution. Regardless, others seem to not have a problem with it, and it's rather minor, so I still support. Thanks for the great work, and good luck with the nomination! Wugapodes (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with the footnotes issue – the long/short footnotes problem; as far as possible, I would ideally love to standardise them all. While shortened footnotes are possible with books (See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Web_pages), as the full name of each book source can be relegated to the "Bibliography" section, I do not see how this is possible when news or web sources are used. I personally prefer book sources, but this is not always possible as some information may only be found in news/online sources.... Mr Tan (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Other comments

Notes

• Looks to me that we haven't had an image review here.
• Also it seems to have been a long time between drinks for you at FAC, Mr Tan, so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

Both the above can be requested at the top of WT:FAC unless one or two of the existing reviewers would like to do the honours. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have submitted the request as you have suggested. (PS: Brianboulton did a source review as shown above, is that still insufficient?) Mr Tan (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the source review above takes care of formatting and reliability, the spotcheck for accuracy etc is another thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

I've removed the full stops where I thought appropriate, using Marilyn Monroe as a reference. If you feel that I may have edited wrongly, please feel free to add or remove where appropriate. Mr Tan (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• File:Coat_of_arms_of_Cambodia.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have scrolled through Cambodia's copyright laws at [17]. To my understanding, artistic works of private individuals are definitely protected by copyright as stated in Article 24 - "The private reproduction of a published work...", there is no clause specifying as if works published by the Cambodian government is copyrighted or not. But as I see it, almost every article of countries on Wikipedia uses the flags and coat of arms in the articles, sometimes with very ambiguous reasons, such as the one listed at File:Coat_of_arms_of_The_Gambia.svg. I must point out that for Cambodia, its own laws are often filled with full of loopholes and ambiguous wordings. Citing the example of defining the giving of gifts as an interesting example, you may want to read more about it at [18] and [19]. I see similar parallels here concerning the ambiguous copyright status of government works, unlike Indonesia (Template:PD-IDGov)and Malaysia (Template:PD-Malaysia) which are spelt out much more clearly.

Citing another example, the File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada_(1957-1994).svg#Licensing used in Elizabeth II - an FA, also similarly justifies "Creative Commons" on the basis that a volunteer editor drafted the symbol himself, but with the disclaimer sentence "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.". For Cambodia's Coat of Arms, the same notice was also being put up as well.

That's one reason as to why I thought of leaving the template "Royal Family of Cambodia" as it is. I mean, if this possibly constitutes a copyright infringement, I won't mind removing the entire template or the logo within the template itself, on the grounds that "Royal Family of Cambodia" uses this Coat of arms with ambiguous. However, there would be a good chance that it would be reverted by other editors (with chauvinistic tendencies) within a couple of months, as they may also possibly reason out that almost every other article also display their respective countries' Coat of Arms so far without issue. (PS: I am not the original uploader of the logo, nor the creator of the "Royal Family of Cambodia" template.) What do you suggest that I do next on this? Mr Tan (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

When was the design first created? It's possible it might be in the public domain due to age regardless of the status of government works. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There were several variant designs of the Coat of Arms created from the 19th century, but this modern version featured here is created in 1951, and 55 years have passed from this date. (Read at: [20]) Mr Tan (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I've done some digging into the copyright situation in Cambodia, and I think the design itself would be covered by PD-CambodiaGov. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds agreeable. I think, we should be specifically refering to Article 10a/b of the Copyright law, "The following works shall not be fallen under any protection by this law: a- Constitution, Law, Royal Decree, Sub-Decree, and other Regulations. b. Proclamation (Prakas), decision, certificate, other instructed circulars issued by state organizations. ", as per Article 6 of the Cambodian constitution which states [21] "The national flag, anthem and coat-of-arms shall be defined in Annexes I-II and III ". In other words, the Coat of arms maybe considered as an article defined under Cambodia's constitution and hence eligible for PD-CambodiaGov...I also note that in official letters and circulars, the Royal Coat of Arms is used almost all the time, accompanying example at [22].....

Anyway, thanks for your advice! A good learning experience for all of us over here indeed :) Mr Tan (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio check by Cas Liber

• Earwig's tool came up clear - so all in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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