Talk:Kim Sung-uk

Kim Sung-uk was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 19, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kim Sung-uk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 13:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result

This article has failed GAR because it is only a start class which needs expansion, proofreading and copyediting. The standard of grammar is quite poor. It lacks breadth of coverage and so fails GACR #3. The lead is probably okay as the article is now, but it will need attention as more content is introduced. Structure is not too bad except that there is a single sub-heading in one section.

Sources are a problem. I suspect that some are unreliable and, in any event, they have not been correctly referenced. For example: He also discussed the vulnerabilities of the South Korean political system to a federation with North Korea, in which North Korea gradually takes over the Korean political system. There is an English version of reference 18 but it does not support that statement, which appears to be original research. I'm not satisfied that the article is neutral. It reads in places like a justification of Mr Kim's beliefs and does not present an alternative viewpoint, which suggests WP:UNDUE.

The article is a long way short of GA standard and should not have been nominated. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]