Talk:Sung-Yoon Lee

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sung-Yoon Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://isi.snu.ac.kr/isi/program/syllabus/[2015%20SNU%20ISI]North%20Korean%20Politics%20and%20Society.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for article quality reassessment (to B-class)

I created this article and improved it over time. The article is currently categorized as C-class, and I am requesting a re-assessment from C-Class to B-class. It is my belief that it at least it qualifies as B-Class , as it meets all the six criteria (and possibly even Good Article). Since user @Asdklf;: first assigned it C-class back in 2014, I would like invite him to take another look now, as well as any other interested editors. In my view the article is thoroughly referenced, well structured, well-written, comprehensive, and also illustrated with images where appropriate. I look forward to the wiki community making a new assessment of its quality. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 5:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Al83tito: - The article does meet criteria for at least B so I have moved it to there. I will check against how it does against higher levels of criteria and classes of articles. There are a few little mis-styled things like the "ands" between the classes he teaches also being italicized, the way the dissertation is in double quotes, and some of the tone in the section regarding his views, so we should make that is all in order before looking higher. Asdklf; (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Certainly comprehensive and clearly referenced, but the entry reads like a press release, extended CV or faculty webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarkHistorian (talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• US Congress House Committee Foreign Affairs 2013 - North Korean Nuclear Program hearing - Sung-Yoon Lee.png
• US Congress House Committee Foreign Affairs 2013 - North Korean Nuclear Program hearing 4.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

How old and why no koran wiki article

The man i very activ in twitter it is not clear why we can NOT get answers about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.149.236 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

On comprehensive and neutral coverage

This article has been tagged as "reading like a resume", and the edit summary says "Seems too promotional and uncritical for a bio". I think that is not a fair assessment of the quality of the article, for two reasons.

First, this bio article is of a scholar that is significantly covered by the media, and the article summarizes the information published about him, without adding or removing positive or negative information; it is a neutral reflection of the information published about the subject. 

Second, this tagging links to an essay, and as the tag at the top of the essay warns, it is opinion, not policy. So the essay is hardly a reason for tagging. The essay itself notes that it is a humorous take on the subject, and that editors are advised to first go look at the more authoritative sources (the actual policies) on writing biographical articles.

Going back to the first point, I think the article does its job of summarizing the relevant information published about the subject of the article. If other editors find additional sources that provide additional views and criticisms, please contribute to the article with them, or at least please point to those sources.

And as another Wikipedia opinion essay says (WP:DRIVEBY), editors that identify a problem in an article ought to better explain what the exact issue is beyond just tagging an article, making an overly broad assertion, and moving on. I will go ahead and remove the tag, and if any one know of additional valuable coverage on the subject, please contribute by at least pointing to it. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Reshaping the works list section

Dear @Buidhe, today you have deleted the Works section of this article (except for keeping one item, a book). In your edit summary you noted this had to do with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I understand that the list was becoming a bit long, and I was beginning to wonder if the Short essays subsection would benefit from some trimming. I assume that within WP:NOT you are endeavoring to apply here the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (if you were taking a different approach, do let me know). While I assume that this was the more specific reasoning, I think that it is appropriate to list an author's works within the wiki article about them, as is the case with many biographical articles on academics or authors. If it was getting a bit too long (a subjective call, but a reasonable one, which I was also beginning to wonder about), I think a reasonable approach is to trim without deleting most of it. With that spirit I will work to rebuild a list, while shortening some parts.

Also, following the guidance from MOS' Lists of works and timelines "Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, (...) are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists" this article was accomplishing the goal of elaborating with prose analysis on the main points contained in the list of works. However, if the list is indeed becoming too long, I will also consider creating a separate stand-alone article listing of the works, and condense even further the list in this biographical article. Please feel free to contribute your advice. Al83tito (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The list of works should only be those encyclopedically relevant, usually only books. It should not include every opinion piece a wikipedia editor finds interesting.

The article must be based on secondary sources; citations to the subject's own works may only supplement other sources not published by the subject. (t · c) buidhe 14:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Buidhe! Al83tito (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)