Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard _Talk 15:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Finished Sven Manguard _Talk 17:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer 2: _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Good Article Criteria

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

---

Assessment 1 by Sven Manguard

Passes - Weakly (see criteria 4) and pending a Second Review by a GAN mentor

1. Passes: Meets the requirements, to the best of my assessment. Mentor, please double check 1b.

a. Yes on clear, yes on concise, yes on grammar, and yes on spelling.

b. I'm no expert on the MoS, so the Mentor is going to have to check this one, but I didn't see any issues with lead sections, layout, or words to watch, and fiction and list incorporation didn't seem relevant.

2. Passes: Meets the requirements. A few minor things detailed below, but not enough to trouble me

a. Yes. Note that there was one dead link in the article, at citation 27, but it is an utterly trivial one, so I'm not holding up the GA for it.

b. Barring my longstanding distrust with About.com (source 28) this meets the requirements admirably.

Comment: Just to clarify, I also wouldn't use About.com as a reference in general. In this case, though, it's only acting as as self-reference, a reference about About.com's practice itself, so I let it stay. If someone else were to argue that what About.com does isn't notable enough for this article, I'd probably be willing to let it go.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

c. No OR on the part of Wikipedia or it's editors.

3. Passes: Very clearly meets the requirements.

a. Yes, covers the main subject well.

b. I suppose this doesn't have unnecessary detail, although I personally didn't find the section "Other countries" that pertinent. That's just my opinion, though, and I can see a good argument being made that the information has it's place in the article.

4. Highly Questionable: Does it cover both sides? Yes. Does it avoid making judgement as to what is correct? Yes. However that being said, in the opening section, the position of Korea is given four times as much space as the position of Japan. In the following sections, 1.1 is Korea heavy, while 1.1.1 is Japan heavy, and the two balance out nicely. The other sections all seem to balance out nicely as well. Only the opening, arguably the most important part, is unbalanced.

Comment: I think I have addressed your concern on the lead based on the expansion I made per Ericleb01's request for expansion. Please let me know if it seems more balanced now. I agree that certain parts are imbalanced individually, but, as you point out, that is a consequence more of an imbalance in what info is available from each side, and that we need to just be NPOV, not necessarily equal.

Works for me. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

5. Passes with reservations: No edit wars, no vandalism, but the page is semiprotected indefinitely. That means that it has been a target in the past and is likely to be one in the future. This in and of itself should not be a reason to block the GA, so since there is no current problem, I'll pass it on this section.

6. Passes: Well imaged, to the point where I can think of neither images in need of being added, nor images that should be removed. Well sourced and labeled.

a. All the images are commons images. All but one are clearly copyright expired, and the one that isn't copyright expired is a PD self release.

b. Yes, everything here is labeled properly.

Notes

• Because this was my first GAN, because of the disclosure below, and because of the issue in criteria 4, I have asked for a second review by a GAN mentor or experienced GAN contributor.
• Full disclosure: I became aware of this GAN via the WikiProject East Asia automatically generated notice board. This page is within the project's scope. I am closely associated with the project and may posses an unconscious bias towards passing this GAN as a result.

---

Assessment 2 by Ericleb01

Hello, I was asked by Sven to perform a second review of the article, primarily to review criteria 1. (b) and 4., it seems. Before reviewing, however, I noticed an issue with the main image, so just to be sure, I did a full review to make sure everything is good. My assessment has been completed below. Please reply under the issues so I may strike them off. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below.

   1. a) Pass _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   1. b) Pass _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See below. I was hesitant about OR, but I was nice and passed it.

   2. a) Pass _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No problems here; all major arguments were dealt with and did not go off-topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I was concerned, as Sven mentioned, seeing the amount of Japanese v. Korean arguments, but I personally think the United Nations section, portraying Japan as a bit of a bad guy (for lack of better words), balanced this out. This could also be a WP:WEIGHT problem; i.e., where the arguments for the Korean side simply are not available or are non-existent.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Was semi-protected in August, but since then, there have been no reverts, and major changes were by Qwyrxian.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below.

   6. a) Pass _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   7. Pass _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   Passed after concerns were (quickly) addressed. Congrats!

Prose and MoS

• The first issue I noticed was a lack of consistency for quotation marks. Some names were between quotes, while others were not. No guideline has been put forward for disputed geographical names, but they should all be consistent.
  •  Done I chose to remove all of the quotation marks around the names except in the lead (since that's first explaining the issue), and twice where it was in a title/quotation.
• Serial commas should equally be consistent. (I've done this.)
• Numbers 1,000 and over should have a comma separating every three digits. (I've done this.)
• Spell out numbers ten and under. (I've done this.)
• For the length of the article, the lead should at least be expanded to summarize the types of arguments used.
  •  Done However, I haven't struck, because I have invited others to comment on my addition on the talk page, and proposed an alternative lead. If no changes are made by the time the edit is reviewed again, I have to guess that means implicit agreement (or lack of concern).
    • The additions are sufficient. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• '...out of 79 maps, nine had used the "Sea of Korea", two had used "Oriental Sea", 35 had used "Sea of Japan", and 79 were unmarked.' -> Out of 79 maps, 79 were unmarked?
  •  Done Fixed to 33 per the source.
• For the "Surveys of antiquarian maps", could statistics be placed from larger percentages to lower percentages? They seem to simply have been thrown in there at random (although any statistic with "Other" as a result should be placed last, which is what you seem to have done).
  •  Done Statistics are now in descending numerical order, with "Other" or "Unmarked" always appearing at the end.
    • Awesome; I wasn't sure if I worded that properly. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Commas shouldn't be inside quotation marks. Periods can be placed at the end (and inside) of a quotation if the source text includes it. (I've fixed this.)
• WP:OVERLINKing seems to be a problem in the "Arguments relating to ambiguity" section.
  •  DoneI have removed all of the links to countries and languages, keeping the links to the other seas and to the two organizations. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Potential sources of confusion include the Chinese local name..." -> This is just one big run-on sentence, and should be chopped into two bits.
  •  Done And while I was checking, I noticed that several of the details were not included in the source, so I cleaned those up as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• "...be determined through consultation. The North Korean representative expressed a willingness to engage in consultation..." -> A proper synonmym for consultation should be found to break up the repetition.
  •  Done ...by combining the two sentences together
• "It was recommended that the parties work together..." -> Who recommended this?
  •  Not done The source itself uses an impersonal passive ("It was suggested that the relevant parties consult with each other on this matter."). Any guess I could make would be OR, but leaving that sentence off leaves the paragraph quite unclear.
    • Hmm. On which page is the sourced recommendation? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • On page 22. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I attributed it to the conference. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Should "Seventh" in "Seventh UNCSGN" be capitalized? Because "eighth" in the later "eighth UNCSGN" is not. Other inconsistencies seem to appear.
  •  Done They should all be in caps, which I believe they are now.
• "On the map of Japan and other Asia maps..." and "...on the map of Korea" -> Are we still talking about the encyclopaedia?
  •  Done Yes, and I added a word to clarify that.

Sourcing

• There are multiple varieties of styles the author seems to have used for sourcing the claims in the article. These should be confined to one style. I recommend the {{Citation}} template to be used throughout. Many are missing titles, access dates, publisher info, and publishing dates. (NEW: Also missing page numbers in sources with multiple pages.)
  •  Done I have converted all of the references into a citation template (almost always {{Cite web}}). I have added all available info; note for instance, that most of the linked websites do not have publishing dates. I have added page numbers to the UNSCGN reports, as they are the most cumbersome to look through. However, I have not added page numbers for the rest, as using page numbers makes list defined references not work. In addition, most of the other documents are short, or are searchable, or do not have page numbers. If you have specific concerns on any of the others, and if adding page numbers will work within the context of LDR, let me know and I will add themQwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Page numbers where they aren't indicated is not a problem. Access dates are good. Titles are fine. Publisher info as well. However, dates are always available. Most web pages have a copyright disclaimer at the bottom with a year on it. This is sufficient. I also found a date on a PDF ref that you seem to have missed. You seem to be busy right now, so I'll try to get some of them done, but I encourage you to try and find dates for the ones that are left. Even an estimation based on the information written in the source is fine. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the help on those; I'll go look for more. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) No need, it's all done. It was fun, actually. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Question: You're adding links to the publishers; is that a recommended practice? And doesn't it violate WP:OVERLINK to do it to more than the first one? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
            • In the references it's recommended. People looking at the sources aren't going to look through the article to find that one blue link, so if the publisher has an article, it's good practice to just link them all. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Ref #11 should link directly to the referenced video. People should not have to watch all three to find the information. The time where the info begins and ends would be appreciated as well.
  •  Done Rather than mark the video reference that way, I switched to a text reference, which avoids access issues and allows for more ease in searching.
• Ref #14, #27 are dead.
  •  Done I replaced ref 14 with a new ref (from Japan Coast Guard) with the same info. On 27, it looks like the American Heritage Dictionary is no longer online, so I can't verify that statement, and thus I removed it. Anyone with print copies of AHD or any other relevant encyclopedias/dictionaries is more than welcome to add offline examples here.
• Ref #22 doesn't source what the text says. It's just a map.
  •  Done Fixed and expanded with detailed info from NGS Manual of Style.
• Ref #24 and #31 should specify that the source is Korean.
  •  Done (24 = Korean, 31 = Japanese)
• I take issue with ref #15, which is a primary source, but this is a GA review, so I'll let it go.
  • It is a primary source, but since the statement pulled from it is wholly factual, with no interpretation, I think that it is acceptable under WP:PRIMARY.
    • To be honest, I'm not very familiar with the guideline, but as I said, it's not an issue.
• "Additionally, the Timor Sea is called Laut Timor in Indonesian, basically meaning the East Sea, as Timor is a variation on the word for East, Timur." -> This claim is not sourced by the reference and is original research.
  • Good catch. I vaguely recall the Timor sentence being added, and we probably just AGF'd at the time; when I rewrote the section I somehow thought it was incorporated into the Basic Position article. As I cannot find a reference for that claim that connects it to the Sea of Japan, I've removed it per WP:NOR. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

• The main image is great, but its description does not indicate where the source map is from. This brings up copyright concerns, and should be cleared before being placed in PD.
  • Comment: Apologies, because I don't work much with images. I don't understand the concern; the creator claims it's an original work. Even if it is based on an underlying map created by someone else, I thought that the very substantial change in adding graphical elements makes the original map no longer relevant. But, again, I don't really understand image copyright issues. In addition, that user no longer appears to be active on Commons.
    •  Done Got it. Using a free add on for Firefox (TinEye) I traced the original map to this commons image. Adding licensing information now, Sven Manguard _Talk 02:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• File:Gando1.jpg - Originality of expression is not applicable here, unlike what the image states. So the tag needs to be replaced. We also need a source for the image and its creation, as the one provided is dead.
  •  Done I think--I changed to {{PD-old}}, as it was compiled in 1753, so I think this is the correct template. I have changed the source to the New York Public Library Digital Gallery.
    • Here's the problem: if you look closely, it's not the same map. Both are by the same author, however, so I looked for the original source from the description and found that the long sentence in quotation marks (on the image description page) is actually the title of the book. And while the original publishing of the book was in 1753, Barnes and Nobles recently published a second edition in the 1960's, making it ineligible for the public domain. So we can't use that image. Give me a second and I'll get you a solution. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, nope. The source you cited, with the second map, is in the same book. So neither of them can be used. Feel free to use another one of the images you had in the original gallery. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • This one, for example, is by the same author, but seems to be in the PD. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I've stripped out Gando, replacing it with another of the images. I still don't understand how a new publisher can somehow "copyright" a 250 year old image, but, who knows. Since that Gando picture wasn't somehow so much better than the others, switching seems like the best option to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't know the specifics, but I do know that the image was in that book, and Barnes & Nobles owns the copyright to the material in that book unless they explicitly mention that the map is in the PD (they might have bought the rights to it from whomever). And until we confirm that sort of thing, we can't use it, unfortunately. It's so unnecessarily complicated... Anyway, the new image passes, so I can strike that off. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• File:Gando1.jpg and File:Corea and Japan Map in 1815.jpg should be uploaded to Commons if they are in the free repository. Not necessary for GAN though.
  • Comment:I will do so after this the GAN is complete, as I've only done that once before and I'd rather be sure and get it right than rush now.
    • As long as you are aware. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• The images in the gallery should either be removed or integrated beside the prose.
  • Comment': I removed the gallery and integrated 2 into the text. However, you can see below that I opened up a new discussion about this, as graphical layout is not my strong suit and I welcome others opinions on the best way to integrate those (or, possibly, bring back the gallery). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll handle that right now while you get the above image sorted out. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I've replied to your note on the talk page. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Final notes

I'm very close to failing this nomination, as the article should have been passed through a peer review before coming here. This saves us editors a lot of trouble. Regardless, I'm giving the nominator seven days to address the aforementioned issues. If the issues are not corrected before then, the article will be failed accordingly (unless Sven or I have reasons not to do so). Please reply under issues when completed so that they can be struck off. This is a decent article, but right now, it's not a "good article". Good luck! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your comments. I apologize first on the final point; this is my first GAN, and I did't see anywhere on the GAN page that doing a PR first is standard practice. I will happily do so in the future. Perhaps it might help to have such a recommendation on either WP:GAN or WP:GA??

Regarding your concenrs, I will look at and attempt to address every issue listed above. I will keep you updated, and, if for some reason, believe that I cannot meet the requirements, withdraw the nomination. Again, thank you both for your feedback. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, peer reviews aren't exactly "standard practice", but it's definitely a recommended route. It helps to eliminate the GA backlog, especially with articles clearly not ready for GA (some articles are simply quick-failed for having too many issues). Also, I do not know why I said that I was close to failing the nomination, as most of the issues are correctable, but the references were a major problem, and was one of my primary concerns.

Personally, I don't see why everyone does not go to peer review first. They give great advice for your article, and there is no pressure on you at all. Then you can go straight to GAN and, normally, you pass with flying colours. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to give a second opinion here, but I will defer to User:Ericleb01. I'll keep an eye on this and see if I can't offer some suggestions or improve the article. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry about that. I asked both of you to do reviews, thinking that if I did, there was a 50/50 shot of one of the two of you doing it. It seems thought that GAN mentors are much more reliable than other groups I've dealt with, so in the future I will just ask whichever one of you has had the most recent account activity, and wait a day or two before asking a second person. Thanks for the strong show of force you two, Sven Manguard _Talk 06:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No need to apologize, I'm sure it would have been fine if I got here first. :) Protonk (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'm sure the outcome would have remained relatively the same regardless of whom took the second opinion (although I may have been a little too stern here, reading back). _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Complete? Maybe

I see from one edit summary that Ericleb01 is off for the night. I think we may have covered everything above, but I want to take another look. Since Eric kindly offered an extension in an earlier edit summary, I think I want to let this sit for awhile--I'm afraid if I look at it now I will miss things. If I leave it sit at least until tonight, or possibly until tomorrow, then I should have fresh eyes that will assess the issues more carefully. I do want to thank both reviewers for not just reviewing and walking away, but both actively helping to improve the problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I looked over the article again, along with the comments above, this morning. While I may well still have missed something, and, of course, the article can always be improved, I think I have met all of the requests. Do the reviewers agree, or have any additional things they'd like tackled? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My concerns have been met, however I am by no means the expert at GAN. I defer to EricLeb01 on this. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not available until now (and even now, I could be sleeping, but I really didn't want to leave this for another night). I've passed it after you addressed that final concern. Great work; that was quite a dash you did there and it certainly increased the article's quality for the better. You can rest assured that your troubles won't go unnoticed. Congrats. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)