Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 82/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Looks good to this ESL.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Just agree on "UN commission on Korea" vs "UN Commission on Korea". Is it notable enough to be linked?

   I'll link it. I've seen it mentioned so much I have to imagine it deserves its own article. —Ed!^(talk) 15:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are some sentences which miss references, including potentially controversial ones, such as the one with "the Soviet Union (USSR) occupied the country". Several other key claims in "Outbreak of war" and "Aftermath" are also uncited. Please ensure that ALL sentences have clear references, even if they will be repeated (on Wikipedia, sentences can be moved around and inserted anywhere, so what is fine at a given moment may no longer be later).

   From what I understand of WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:OVERCITE, refs are only necessary on material that is likely to be challenged. I've been chided for overciting articles at A-class and FA, so I generally avoid citing every other sentence and using the same cite over and over (generally I've seen little support for citing at the end of every sentence, the same ref, over and over.)

   Well, I apologize for different standards. I do not believe anything can be overcited, my (recent) GAs/FAs have all sentences cited and it is something I demand from articles I review. I will only say that if anybody criticized you for it, ping me and I'll join you and defend the citations in future discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   I'll do this, but frankly I'm tired of doing and un-doing edits to deal with conflicting reviewers. I'm holding you to that, and pinging you every time I get told not to do this. —Ed!^(talk) 14:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Done. —Ed!^(talk) 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   It would be also nice, but NOT REQUIRED for GA if links to specific pages on Google Books were provided.

   I've also been wondering about this. Is there a policy? I ask because I have linked a lot of PD books to government sites where they are available electronically, but I don't know what the word is on where to "link" offline sources. —Ed!^(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   Google Books are not required, but I find them very helpful when present (mind you, the links are often not accessible outside US, sadly). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   Also, the last para should not reify the magazine; state the author, and and afterwards it should not be "magazine contended" but "John X contended" and on.

   Done. —Ed!^(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Pending per above.

   C. No original research:

   Check.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Almost. I was thinking what could be added, and I'd like to see a brief explanation on who was the Korean representative to UN, and for the less informed readers, why (as I assume) NK had no representative.

   Done. —Ed!^(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   What about the representative part? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   I've clarified that Chang Myon was the ROK diplomat. Is this what you are looking for? —Ed!^(talk) 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, perfect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Check.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Most likely, but I'd like to see a GPage links/quotation for "the United States (US) occupied the country". And more than one source; is it common to use the term "occupation" in this context?

   Per above, I'd contend that re-citing Apple pg. 2 three sentences in a row is redundant. —Ed!^(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   I am afraid I'll have to insist on it. Per above :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Check.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Check.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Check. Could perhaps try to squeeze one more image at the bottom?

   Considered that, but my choice was Trygve Lie and his photo isn't great. Is there one you think would look suitable? —Ed!^(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   If you cannot find a nything better, it is not necessary; this was more of an optional suggestion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold. I want to commend the author on a very good use of blue (and red links). I've reviewed several noms recently and this is the first where I don't have to complain about that :)

   Thank you! I appreciate it. —Ed!^(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   All looks good, just waiting for the answer to my question at 1B. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

   All's good, passing! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)