Jump to content

Talk:Korean cuisine/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peter Isotalo 22:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the Korean cuisine article for Good Article because of the growth of the article from a simple synopsis to a fully fledged and complete article on the subject. I believe it fully meets the standards and will be a good contribution to the WP stable of good articles. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Caspian blue to do this GA review, and I am in the midst of doing that right now. This is a solid article, but it has some issues that should be dealt with before I can pass it. It will take some time for me to write up the review properly, so I'll be placing it on hold. However, the article first needs to be properly listed at WP:GAN.
Peter Isotalo 22:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, can you indicate at WP:GAN that you are reviewing this article by placing the review template under the article's listing - full instructions at the nominations page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I was just though it best if Jeremy made the actual listing. I'm somewhat busy with studies, but I should be posting a review here within a week.
Peter Isotalo 06:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria) by Peter Isotalo 08:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well-written: Not quite there. Here are my quips:
    • "Korean cuisine is largely based on rice, noodles, tofu, vegetables, and meats." - The first three are fairly specific and therefore informative, but the last seem rather vague. I mean, is there any cuisine that doesn't include veggies and meats? :-)
    Well, that is a general statement, I'm not sure how specifically to state the mention of vegetables and meats. Except grain stuffs, Korean diet mostly consists of veggies, and meats are still not for every meal's item unlike the Westerner's. I could mention "meat such as beef, pork, chicken and others", but those are too specific, and Korean cuisine does not have strict prohibition of certain foodstuffs unlike Jewish, Indian, Arabic cuisine, so saying every meat that Koreans eat seems to specific. I think the passage is okay for introduction.--Caspian blue 16:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A satisfying explanation. Peter Isotalo 22:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's both B.C. (sic?) and BCE in the text. Please choose one.
       Done --Caspian blue 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Centuries as given as either "first" and "5th". Again one standard needs to be adhered to. I recommend the second since it stands out better.
       Done --Caspian blue 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fish and shellfish have always been a major part of Korean cuisine"; this implies a Korean nation dating back to, well, the dawn of man. I think there might be better way to say that it's a long-standing practice.
    That is more about how the geographic feature has influence to Korean cuisine. I think removal of "always" could redue your concern.--Caspian blue 17:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What significance does the barrage of Korean terms have for the cuisine itself? Anything that isn't actually relevant for understanding the article subject should be considered somewhat superfluous. For example, "Korean cuisine" is not a unique term on its own, but built on a set formula which does not require translation any more than French cuisine or German cuisine. I don't speak Korean, but from the Hanja it seems rather obvious that it's just generic terms for "cuisine" or "food" combined with "Korean". The only exception to this that I feel is justified would be the translation of Nongsa jikseol, which is useful for referencing purposes. The rest is just translation service, something which Wikipedia is not.
      Comment I have several cook books on Asian cuisine (not for cooking, but mostly getting to know the culture and anticipating images ;-), but they mention about local terms because those terms and clarifications are not identical to the Western cuisine (mostly French, and Italian or American cuisine). If I also take an example in Scandinavian cuisine, Crisp bread is an English term for the hard type bread translated into the regional languages as knäckebröd, hårt bröd, knækbrød, knekkebrød, näkkileipä, hrökkbrauð. Do you think they should be taken out from the article, just because the translation is already there and at the title of the article? I know non-Korean readers would be irritated by the non-Latin scripts, so I moved the Korean names to an infobox in the intro. I would remove some unnecessary Korean scripts and terms, but removing all of them could reduce a chance for those who want to know the original terms in Korean cuisine.--Caspian blue 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      "Korean cuisine" is not a term in the same way that bibimbap or knäckebröd are. It's merely a description of food and drink that are associated with Korea. It requires no more Hangul than French cuisine requires a cuisine française, and it definitely doesn't merit a terminology infobox. I'm willing to listen to suggestions for compromises concerning use of Korean script overall, but there needs to be a minimum of pruning, especially when it comes to terms that even have their own article. I'm overall fairly tolerant of linguistic metainfo, and I'm not bothered by Romanizations, but I draw the line at non-Latin scripts, because it caters to such a small portion of the readership but is mostly just a distraction to 99% of the readers. Peter Isotalo 22:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, knäckebröd is neither English, or referred to as such in English speaking world unlike bibimbap, and in articles dealing with Korean subjects refer to Korean script and its meaning, so I don't see why it has to be a problem. Moreover, [hansik] is used in English sources to simply refer to Korean cuisine or food. I'm not convinced to remove the infobox in lead. Though, I would remove unnecessary Korean terms indicating vegetables and ingredients.--Caspian blue 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sure there might be occasional references to hansik, but it still doesn't merit a dedicated infobox since this article is about an encyclopedic subject, not a speicifc piece of terminology. Again, compare with other cuisine articles. If you know that hansik is used as a synonym for "Korean cuisine" in English, include in the lead in bold as an alterantive term. However, the terms for this particular subject in Korean aren't relevant for English Wikipedia. Peter Isotalo 08:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why hoe has a pronunciation guide, but it also seems quite unncessary outside of its own article. Pretty much the same goes for "Romanization of Korean words may vary widely, with g/k (eg galbi/kalbi), j/ch, d/t and b/p often used interchangeably." Since this isn't a linguistic article, it's not really relevant.
      I removed the IPA from the entry since it has its own article. I will sort out the mentioned Romanization. (update; removed the passage)--Caspian blue 02:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure what to think about all the linkage in the form of "see also" and "further information". It borders on dinkiness, but it's difficult to say if they're helpful or not. I don't want to actually fail on account of it, but it does seem a bit unnecessary to link to the same list of Korean dishes eight times (thirteen if you count the bulleted links under "Prepared dishes"). The double-decker jobs, like those under beverages, seem like the most obviously excessive. Wouldn't the "main article"-links be enough?
    • Why are grains and legumes placed under the same heading? They have quite differing nutritional qualities and their uses appear to be rather distinct.
      I divided the legume section. I assume the combined section is due to lacks of information on bean consumptions in Korean cuisine, and legumes are often cooked with grains. So far this section has only information on soy bean, but I will add azuki bean and mung bean and others. --Caspian blue 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      (Update) I added info about mung beans, azuki beans and dishes made with them. I'm a bit concerned with the length of the content, but I feel almost done with the section.--Caspian blue 05:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      If you feel length is a problem, just remove some of the examples. They're interesting, but not vital. I went through the additions and made some tweaks, but they still require some attention. I inserted some hidden comments concerning some of the grammar. Peter Isotalo 11:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I copy-edited to correspond to your concerns.--Caspian blue 12:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gi" would really better to simply write "qi", since the latter is the name that most readers will be familiar with. We're talking about a concept popular all over East Asia rather than a specifically Korean term. It's also preferable to use terms like "karaoke" rather than "noraebang",. I also think that the close similarity of kimbap to sushi should be explicitly noted, no matter the geneaological relation between the two dishes.
    • I assume that most of the 18th century dining etiquette applied only to the upper class, not the population in general. I'm sure the gender hierarchies were applicable to the lower classes as well, but it can hardly be assumed without more evidence. The etiquette also seems to focus on prescription more than description. Do most modern Koreans actually still frown on table conversation, serve women separately and fret about exactly where to put specific dishes on the table?
    • What does "thirst water" actually mean?
    • Make sure to explain terms like banchan the first time they're mentioned.
    • "Unlike other cultures, in Korean culture, soup is served..." Unlike what other cultures? Not necessarily questioning that it might be a somewhat unique trait, but some examples might be useful.
    • "Prepared dishes" is somewhat of a problem section. There's a lot of odd semi-sentences, somewhat stilted language and the whole section looks suspiciously similar to a list. Considering there already is a dedicated list for Korean dishes, it seems unnecessary to have one in this article as well. Here are some specific examples:
      • "Kong Jang Sweet and sticky soyabeans" - fragment
      • "Patbingsu [...] - a very popular desert [sic] and snack"
      • "this originally winter dish" - grammar isn't ideal
      • Only the article title should be bolded; see "jjim", "jeon", "gui", etc.
      • Why are "main staple foods", "subsiduary dishes" and "dessert" in quotes and why are the Korean terms merely in Hanja? The first and second terms are clearly translations, but "dessert" seems less certain. What does the Korean term actually mean, because the Western idea of dessert is more a lot more specific than just "sweet dish".
    • {{TOC limit}} was applied just a few days ago, but I don't really understand why. Isn't the point of a TOC to see the entire article structure? There's a fair number of sub-sections, but it doesn't seem that excessive to me.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Overall strong referencing, but with some formatting that needs fixing
    • Three sets of notes is very confusing. I understand the basic reasoning behind separating different sources, but in practice it only makes the references more difficult to decipher and also implies that different types of sources are not equal. One set of notes should be used.
    • A lot of the books could use ISBNs.
    • Common practice for referencing to newspapers should be according to the formula "Author (date), "Title of article", Publication. The article title should preferably be the link. See for example: Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Newspaper.2Fmagazine_articles_.28or_online_periodicals.29
    • The historical information appears to rely solely on Pettid. If there are plans on going for FA status in the future, I recommend trying to find other sources as well. Not something I want to fail the article on, but still something that should preferably be dealt with in the future.
    • "Prepared dishes" is pretty much devoid of referencing. How come?
  3. Broad in its coverage - Good coverage, but I do have some queries.
    • Coverage is generally broad, but the relevance of much of the early history esecapes me. Too much of the content seems to be a general political or social history of the Korean peninsula. How is the low status of butchers relevant, for example? Why do readers need to be informed about the unification under Silla or the Goryeo dynasty? Wherein lies the culinary interest of explaining the introduction of the rain gauge?
    • I don't understand why you feel the early history irrelevant of the main topic. Any cuisine are influenced by political or cultural big changes such as unification of the Korean peninsular and establishment of states. Silla was located in the far southeast of the Korean peninsular, so the cuisine had a lot of seafood. Goryeo was a strong Buddhist state, so the diet was influenced by Buddhism. I don't seen why this should be removed. I examined the length of the history section with those of French cuisine and [Italian cuisine]]. The history section is much shorter than these two articles, so I rather feel the early culinary history can be expanded.
    Italian cuisine#History Prose size (text only): 12801 B (2100 words) "readable prose size"
    French cuisine#History Prose size (text only): 16226 B (2642 words) "readable prose size"
    Korean cuisine#History Prose size (text only): 8475 B (1380 words) "readable prose size"
    • Although I agree that the mention of baekjeong is not coherently presented why they should be mentioned, the low status of butchers is in fact somewhat related to the lower consumption of meat than other foodstuffs. I will supplement the sentence with necessary information.
    • My complaint is not about prose size, but the lack of connection between the info and the actual article subject. The histories of the Italian and French cuisines are indeed larger, and it's even possible that I would be stricter on them if I reviewed them today, but they do stay on topic and explicitly explain the connection between larger historical changes and changes in the culinary field. There is really none of this type of explanation in the pre-modern history. What you're explaining here about the influence of Silla, Buddhism, etc. might very well be true, but it can't be merely assumed. It needs to be explained explicitly. I believe this also revives my concern about making it appear as if the idea of a national Korean cuisine predates the nation itself. Without a nation-state there can be no unified cuisine (if such a thing can be said to exist even today), and transposing the cuisine of the upper classes is on the kingdom/country/region is, of course, also problematic. Peter Isotalo 11:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section on the royal court cuisine is interesting in of itself, but in this context it's rather excessive, especially considering it has a dedicated sub-article. How about cutting it down to one or two paragraphs? I also think this info would be more at home in "History".
    • The lead speaks of regional differences, but the only info I can find are on the differences between north and south, and those seem to be mainly economical in nature.
      • I started "Regional cuisine" section[1], and should expand each regional cuisine. This job is way much more than what I thought before participating in the GA process.--Caspian blue 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, I think I might be a bit rusty when it comes to following the latest procedures of GACs. Regional differences, though, should at least be described briefly, which is exactly what you have done. The sub article Korean regional cuisine complements to such an extent that only a brief summary is required in this article, especially for GA status.
  4. Neutral: The treatment of national history and some other things needs work.
    • There doesn't need to be a lengthy discussion about who thinks what about dog meat or arguments for and against, but saying only that it's "not as widely consumed as beef, chicken, and pork" is skirting the issue. It's a potentially flammable problem and should be at least nominally recognized as one in this article.
    • Extending the history of a national cuisine back to the dawn of time is in no way neutral. If there is to be an extensive prehistory, there need to be qualifications and caveats that clearly point out where the idea of a national cuisine begins and where a mere prehistory ends.
    • I'm not entirely comfortable with references to uniqueness and "complex interaction" in the lead, since this is a statement that could be made for virtually any cuisine. These comments really seem more rhetorical than informative.
    • References to consumption statistics in the last part of the history-section appear to apply to South Korea while the term used is just "Korea". Please make sure that the two countries are clearly distinguished.
  5. Stable: The dog meat dispute seems to have been settled rather well, and I can't see that there are any other stability issues that plague the article.
  6. Illustrated: Excellent pictures. Only minor issues need fixing. One of the captions says "Chopsticks should always be lifted from the table by the eldest family member first." - this pretty much amounts to an etiquette recommendation rather than image information. There are also captions that merely link to the name of the dish. More explicit information on what the dishes actually consist of would be useful.
I'm taking a wikibreak until sometime next week.
Peter Isotalo 07:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm now back. I see that the first tweak has alrady been made and I'm eagerly waiting to see what is next to come.
Peter Isotalo 12:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will also resume improving the article fro now. ;)--Caspian blue 16:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been on hold three months now. If there's only a bit left to do, try to get it done quickly. Should be a pass or fail within the next few days. Wizardman 01:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Caspian blue 03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the reviewer, I'm not particularly worried about this being finished within the next couple of days. I am engaged in other projects at the moment, but I've not simply left this to rot. I agree that edits are overdue, but I'm definitely not going to rush a decision within the next few days. However, I am willing to set a deadline for the remaining issues to be either amended through editing or discussed properly.
Peter Isotalo 09:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; in that case could you two make a final deadline so this can get finished? 100+ days at GAN is pretty steep for any article, especially one that's been reviewed much of those 100. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, due to the holiday season and other stuffs, the deadline was set up til the end of this month, so I would not increase more delay over this review.--Caspian blue 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, just checking (I'm bothering all the old reviews, not just you guys :P so don't sweat it). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_cuisine/GA1&oldid=340831192"