Wikipedia:Peer review/Baekjeong/archive1

Paekchŏng

I created this article from a final paper, and I could use some suggestions about making it more encyclopedic. It also looks a bit blocky or wordy to me, and I'm not sure how it could be better broken down. Although I would appreciate any suggestions about anything regarding the article. Sarge Baldy 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is too wordy for an article that is explaining a lot of concepts and organizations that will be alien to many English readers. In cases like this I would say it is better to be too wordy than not wordy enough.

Some comments:

The beginning of the Social History section, didn't flow well - there was no history of the outcaste groups. I've rearranged it to what I think is better, but some more background on the groups would be good. You could do with some more dates in that section too to make it clear that the Joseon Dynasty is after the Mongol invasion.
There is no current status:the history tails off in the early 20th century. Do they still exist? If so, what is their status in modern Korea. What happened to the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa?
You should decide whether to use Paekchŏng or Baekjeong. Explain it at the beginning and then stick to one. (I recommend Baekjeong as that is the title of the article).
I created a redirect from Paekchŏng as it didn't exist.
It would be nice to have more than 3 references in an article this long.

Hope this helps. Yomangani 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a number of the problems expressed. Some of it means filling in the article with information I'm not sure I have. Although I thought I left it pretty clear that the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa disbanded. I don't know quite what has happened since there. I believe I read that the group is fully integrated now, but it's something that needs a clear reference. The reason for the discrepancy of the term is that I was using Paekchŏng (the more common form and my own preference) where Wikipedia standardizes Korean under Revised Romanization.

I'm not sure the references are quite so light. The first two total to 69 pages, and the third reference is a book. Unfortunately, I only had time to read one chapter of the book, and it was the last one (concerning the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa and modern movements), which is why that portion of the article is more detailed than the rest. Reading through the rest of the book would obviously help, and I'll probably purchase a copy later. The other issue regarding references is a bit more problematic. Essentially these are the only good English language sources of information. Both authors extensively reviewed Japanese and Korean resources on the topic; I know neither language. Obviously I would appreciate any efforts to bring more references to the topic, and double-checking to make sure I didn't make any obvious mistakes using the ones I did. Thank you, I appreciate the comments. Sarge Baldy 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa Youth Vanguard disbanding (damn pronouns). Maybe you can hunt down a Korean speaker (try Wikipedia:Translators_available#Korean-to-English) to see if any relevant articles appear on the Korean wikipedia. Yomangani 15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I can see how that could be confusing. The Hyŏngp'yŏngsa Youth Vanguard likely never even existed. That was an accusation, and one that had little evidence and didn't hold up in court. Joong-Seop Kim's interpretation was that it was simply a ploy by Japanese officials to remove the radical elements from the Hyŏngp'yŏngsa. I hope that reads somewhat more clearly now? But that is another good suggestion. Sarge Baldy 16:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's obvious (even too me) now. Yomangani 16:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]