Talk:Jeju 4.3 Committee
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Looking good - a very solid summary of the key details. Could add reference to what the 4.3 "incident" actually was in the opening paragraph. Dwebsterbu (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Try paraphrasing some of your direct quotes: when there are so many it becomes a bit cumbersome--Jgrubb12 (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- You might want to consider a more diverse list of sources, I noticed a lot of "ibid" (and you don't have a "References" subheading- something to add)--Jgrubb12 (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- This may be a formatting error, but there is "Jeju 4.3" scattered throughout the article --Jgrubb12 (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have a lot of headings/subheadings and they are confusing upon first reading: maybe combine some of them or simplify/clarify their titles?--Jgrubb12 (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- This may be a formatting error, but there is "Jeju 4.3" scattered throughout the article --Jgrubb12 (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- You might want to consider a more diverse list of sources, I noticed a lot of "ibid" (and you don't have a "References" subheading- something to add)--Jgrubb12 (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
comments on final draft
[edit]I realize this is still a draft in-progress and you are still working on it. And there's evidence of good research (given that not much is published in English) here, certainly. Ironically, this has some of the same strengths and areas needing improvement as the article on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Korea). People often like lists, but it's helpful to tell them what the list means - so it would be useful to summarize the criticisms rather than listing them all. Your peer reviews reflect this issue. This is still more in essay than encyclopedia style in places, and therefore has more repetition than is needed.
In the introduction, some of the info and the quote might move into the body of article - the intro probably has too much in it at the moment. Try to paraphrase as many as possible of the quotes, keeping only the most “pithy” as direct quotes. What happened after the commission reported? That could also be a short section. Article could be shortened without losing out.
This week, you should plan to move your article to the Wikipedia mainspace, even if it is not completely finished - feedback from "Wikipedians" can often be helpful. Tips on doing this appear in the “Moving Out of Your Sandbox” handout, at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Classroom_handout_-_moving_out_of_your_sandbox.pdf
You may also wish to consult, before the final deadline at the end of next week, the handout on “Polishing Your Article” at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polishing_your_articles.pdf Dwebsterbu (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)