Template:Did you know nominations/Han Bong-zin
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Han Bong-zin
- ... that footballer Han Bong-zin was alleged to be better than Pelé?
- Source: Sunday Mirror ("The outstanding North Korean footballer is ... Han Bong Jin [a variation of Han Bong-zin]. Pyongyang (The Capital) Radio describes the winger modestly: 'A footballer who overshadows the world-renowned Brazilian player [Pelé]'") / Grimsby Evening Telegraph ("Han Bong Zin is the man described by Pyongyang Radio as 'better than Pele'")
- ALT1: ... that footballer Han Bong-zin was alleged to "overshadow" Pelé? Source: same
- ALT2: ... that the North Korean government claimed footballer Han Bong-zin was better than Pelé? Source: same
- ALT3: ... that the North Korean state-run media claimed footballer Han Bong-zin was better than Pelé? Source: same
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Caitlyn Wurzburger
- Comment: Regarding ALT2/ALT3: the sources say that it was "Pyongyang Radio". That sounds like a government/state-run program, especially since, if I remember right, the only media in North Korea is state-owned. Let me know about your thoughts on whether it is correct to describe it as the NK government/state making the claims.
Converted from a redirect by BeanieFan11 (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 183 past nominations.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Brachy08 (Talk) 04:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I highly doubt his notability based off a previous AfD discussion, but since the article expanded a lot, I think it is worth a shot. Unfortunately the source you gave is unreliable as it is a tabloid. And not that interested in "X is going to take over Y" kinds of facts. Otherwise, DYK would be filled with statements like "Did you know that Disney+ is going to take over Netflix as the top streaming service"? Brachy08 (Talk) 04:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008: The prior AFD was very poor as none of the editors looked at Newspapers.com or discussed the fact that he's one of seven players whose life story is chronicled in the film The Game of Their Lives (SIGCOV) or that failing all else, this clearly passes WP:NBASIC (but features like Han Bong Jin-he dribbles like Garrincha, shoots like Charlton are clearly SIGCOV for GNG).
As for the sources itself, being a tabloid alone is not enough to disqualify a source as far as I'm aware. Neither does the Grimsby Evening Telegraph even appear to be a tabloid(?).
Regarding the hook, I still think it interesting as an extremely obscure player being allegedly better than possibly the greatest ever (this isn't "X is going to overtake"); that its a nation's government making the claim only adds more interest (and North Korea another added twist).
Should I request another reviewer to analyze? BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC) - You can if you like. However, even if the player is very obscure, and yeah he is, still doesn’t really spark any interest. Brachy08 (Talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008: Thought of another one, in case the others don't work – what about:
- @Brachy0008: The prior AFD was very poor as none of the editors looked at Newspapers.com or discussed the fact that he's one of seven players whose life story is chronicled in the film The Game of Their Lives (SIGCOV) or that failing all else, this clearly passes WP:NBASIC (but features like Han Bong Jin-he dribbles like Garrincha, shoots like Charlton are clearly SIGCOV for GNG).
- Alt4 ... that footballer Han Bong-zin trained in the military every day for four years in preparation for the FIFA World Cup? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- ALT4 can pass. Seems a lot more interesting than the rest. Also, source? Brachy08 (Talk) 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- My unsolicited comment. I think the article meets the DYK criteria, and the Alt 3, or something like that is the most interesting. --evrik (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008: See Liverpool Daily Post:
For the last four years of his football career Han Bong Jin — like the rest of his colleagues -- has been preparing for the 1966 World Cup. When the North Koreans reorganised their football organisation he was one of those taken from his club and added to a squad of 40 players to be employed by the Army ... who trained for football twice a day.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)- @BeanieFan11: unfortunately, that is a tabloid, and thus unreliable. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008: How'd you determine that? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11: searching it up. tabloids are usually unreliable bc they put stuff in a sensationalist light. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008: I meant, how did you determine that the Liverpool Daily Post is an unreliable tabloid? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11: tabloids are usually unreliable on wikipedia standards. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that, but I'm not seeing that this paper specifically was a tabloid? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Liverpool Daily Post. The infobox says that it is a tabloid. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- That links to the newspaper size tabloid, not necessarily that they engaged in tabloid journalism (though some do both). It doesn't seem the paper is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources or has even been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'll request another opinion on this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Liverpool Daily Post. The infobox says that it is a tabloid. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that, but I'm not seeing that this paper specifically was a tabloid? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11: tabloids are usually unreliable on wikipedia standards. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008: I meant, how did you determine that the Liverpool Daily Post is an unreliable tabloid? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11: searching it up. tabloids are usually unreliable bc they put stuff in a sensationalist light. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008: How'd you determine that? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11: unfortunately, that is a tabloid, and thus unreliable. Brachy08 (Talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008: See Liverpool Daily Post:
- Alt4 ... that footballer Han Bong-zin trained in the military every day for four years in preparation for the FIFA World Cup? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Without speaking to the specific reliability and usage of Liverpool Daily Post in this instance, BeanieFan11 is correct. "Tabloid" has two different meanings, of which the infobox usage is very different than the secondary use by Brachy0008, which is shorthand for tabloid journalism, which in turn used to refer to specific tabloids with red mastheads, known as red tops. Our article on tabloid journalism makes this distinction a bit more clear: "Not all newspapers associated with tabloid journalism are tabloid size, and not all tabloid-size newspapers engage in tabloid journalism." Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- My college newspaper was printed tabloid style, but we were not a "tabloid." As long as the source does not run afoul of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, it should be okay. --evrik (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Brachy0008: can you address the responses? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
New reviewer needed unless Brachy0008 returns. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
hi. sorry for the inactivity... nom would need a second opinion tho, so best get a new reviewer. thx! Brachy08 (Talk) 01:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)- since got now new reviewer and i have more free time now (yay), i may complete the review... will do a final check on the source before completing it.
- done review! brachy08 (chat here lol) 08:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Brachy0008, because there was a new review request after your original review, this doesn't show up as having been approved for the bot. Can you please reiterate your review tick icon below (you can copy the code from the table just above the edit window). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I've restored the original review for posterity's sake, and will reiterate the approval here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Brachy0008, because there was a new review request after your original review, this doesn't show up as having been approved for the bot. Can you please reiterate your review tick icon below (you can copy the code from the table just above the edit window). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- done review! brachy08 (chat here lol) 08:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- since got now new reviewer and i have more free time now (yay), i may complete the review... will do a final check on the source before completing it.