Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Restrictions on geographic data in South Korea

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Theleekycauldron talk 23:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Restrictions on geographic data in South Korea

(
)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 02:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Restrictions on geographic data in South Korea; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • This review is for ALT0 which is best IMO ("it leaves readers wanting more").
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - Which source actually described the restrictions "as among the most severe among developed countries"? See further comments below.
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Hook is "sort of" in article. The closest I can read is Korean law and implementation has been noted to be among the most restrictive within developed economies and have been called a trade barrier. But this sentence has NO inline references, which is a must. As for the sources mentioned above, the 1st one is behind a pay wall, and the 2nd does NOT make this claim (although it could be deduced from it).
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thanks for your hard work on this new article. As for the hook, I get the impression that it may be a synthesis from various sources, because no source "describes [it] as among the most severe among developed countries". There is also citation overkill at 2 paragraphs. Furthermore, the issue with Google Maps is from 2018 and it appears that Google Maps are better now. Could this info be a bit outdated by now? Is there an update to this info? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  • P199, References are not required for every sentence - this is a two-sentence section that has several references following it. That said, I am not attached to ALT0, if you think the sources don't fully support it (although I think this is a case of synthesis within the Wikipedia rules). Can we go with ALT1 or ALT2? (As for an update to the issues discussed, I could not find anything in RS. Sadly, people like to complain, when issues are fixed, they are less likely to publish news pieces etc. about this). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The statements "its reuse is among the most restrictive within developed economies" and "Korean law and implementation has been noted to be among the most restrictive within developed economies" still need to be rewritten or removed. This is actually more than synthesis; you are drawing a conclusion not stated by the sources, which is WP:OR. This also affects ALT1.
As for ALT2, small issue with the word "criticized", since that is not WP:NPOV. And the statement in the article about protectionism is not referenced at all.
Regarding updating the info, I understand that finding new info can be very hard. But we can't leave outdated or inaccurate info appear as if it is current. You may want to apply the WP:ASOF guideline.
Finally, the citation overkill is not resolved. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@P199: Thank you for your comments. I believe that many of the issues you raise are not related to DYK requirements (if we were reviewing this for GA, it would be another issue). DYKs do not have to be comprehensive, and as for outdated, if no reliable sources exist for an update, we cannot do it (WP:OR indeed). But to move forward, I'll propose nevised/simpler hooks below (ALT2a with no criticism and simple if boring ALT3). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi Piotrus. I like ALT2a. True, the article does not need to be comprehensive or entirely up to date, but the content still needs to adhere to all relevant policies.
Again, the statements "its reuse is among the most restrictive within developed economies" and "Korean law and implementation has been noted to be among the most restrictive within developed economies" still need to be removed. The sources just don't say this!
The word "protectionism" is only mentioned once in the article (in the intro) and has no reference. Per WP:DYKG: Hooks should be definite facts that are verified by citations in the article. This should be an easy fix because you already have a reference (#9 Asia Times) that says that.
I don't expect you to update the info if none is available. But it is just as easy to date the info, see WP:PRECISELANG. If you need help with this, let me know. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
P199, Do note that the term protectionism is linked and referenced in the body, just hidden under the pipe "benefits local Korean competitors". If you could help with dating and rewording the content you think is not supported by sources, please do so. Note that the lead, per WP:LEAD, should be a summary of the article, but some minor rewording/use of synonyms is allowed. I do believe that the sources do support saying that "its reuse is among the most restrictive within developed economies", but I agree this is not very clearly stated by the sources. Again, I'd appreciate your help rewording this. For additional sources, note this: "ROK’s data localization policies are a special case internationally ". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I made some changes in line with my comments above, but I won't make major changes, otherwise I become an involved editor and no longer a reviewer. If you agree with the tweaks and you are not making any other changes yourself (although you could expand this topic considerably with the sources you have so far - but this is really outside the DYK), let me know and I'll approve ALT2a. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
P199 Thank you, looks good for me, and for now I am done with the article. (I may add a date or such to some new reporting). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

for ALT2a. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel like ALT2a just isn't that interesting, how about:
Also if you had an objection with the word "severe", I'd note that it's still mentioned in the lede of the article ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Fine for me. P199? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
for ALT1a (it also passes all criteria for DYK). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_South_Korea&oldid=1187548221"