Talk:North Korean Embassy in Madrid incident/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caker18 (talk · contribs) 19:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Good article" nomination passed

Hey, Overall the prose is good, but unfortunately there is only one image, which I don't think is enough to adquately address the relevant topics. Instead, try putting images (mugshots) of the raiders, the flag of the movement, and the building itself would help a lot.

GA Review pass

@Caker18: surely not meeting a single criteria at the onset of a GA review does not call for a quick failing it. Editors are typically given a few weeks to address surmountable issues, and more if progressing, without the need to renominate.

Also, regarding the images criteria. As this is a historical event and one that unfolded away from the public eye, what kind of images are you expecting exactly? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I'm calling for images that provide context. For example, an image of the building itself, the flag of the Free Joseon movement, or maybe the images of the raiders. Regarding the quick failing review, I think I might have used the wrong template. Thanks! I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Caker18: thanks. There's now an image of the embassy, an extra map, and the symbol of Free Joseon. Any images of the raiders (you can see Ahn here and the video from inside the embassy here would have to meet WP:NFCC, and I'm not sure what kind of statements in the article text would necessitate those images. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: wonderful! I'll have the protocols done in a little while (a couple hours) because I'm busy right now. Good job! I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Caker18. I'm actually not the nominator. That honor goes to Serial Number 54129. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Final Decision

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Post-approval comment

When reading through the article after this was listed as a GA, I noticed some prose infelicities and started doing some copyediting—these were the sort of issues, such as missing words and incomplete sentences, that are normally raised and fixed in the course of a GAN review, but weren't here. I found a bit more than I bargained for, so I have made a request at the Guild of Copy Editors for a full copyedit; the expectation is that once they're done, the article will meet the "well written" part of the GA criteria, since it doesn't yet do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, BlueMoonset. Sounds like the appropriate course of action. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, just a heads up that the Guild of Copy Editors copyedit is complete, and the editor thinks the article is now much closer to "well written". A "citation needed" template and a "sentence fragment" template have been added to the article, and should probably be dealt with by someone who can source the uncited quote and knows what else needs to be in that fragment. In addition, the copy editor couldn't find an elegant way to combine the Lankov material in Reactions into two or three paragraphs, which seemed desirable. I think at a minimum, Lankov's full title should be given at the beginning of the section rather than a few paragraphs in, and he should be mentioned consistently: he's "Analyst" in an earlier section, yet "Professor" in Reactions. Also pinging original nominator Serial Number 54129, in case they are the one who should be making the updates. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, BlueMoonset. I unwatchlisted this article a while back as, although it wasn't quite ready, it became difficult to edit. Someone who fancies themselves a historian began rewriting it bit by bit and was very poor on communication. As you know, that makes for a more dispiriting process which I felt it unnecessary to put myself through. But well done with this all the same! Best, ——SerialNumber54129 13:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I've implemented all the suggestions made above, with two exceptions. I can't access the Washington Post article "A shadowy group trying to overthrow Kim Jong Un allegedly raided a North Korean embassy in broad daylight" that you used for the sentence fragment that needs expansion. Could you take a look? The other thing I did not do was combine the Lankov paragraphs in reactions, although I changed "professor" to "analyst" (since he speaks in his Korea Risk Group capacity) and moved the introduction to the top of the section. You could take a look at that as well, if you want to. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sock input

@BlueMoonset: Can this be unreviewed and put back in the GA queue? It's a little late, but I've only just noticed that—since we last discussed this review—the nominator has been blocked as a sock of User:DeepNikita. G4 is no longer available for the page, but I'm not particularly happy about a sock giving me credit for anything, to be honest. ——SN54129 00:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, please post this to WT:GAN to see what the thoughts are there. I don't know what is best under the situation; some possibilities are:

• revoke GA review/status, as you've requested, and put it back for review either with the original nomination date to retain seniority or with a new date
• try to find someone to do an individual GA reassessment (effectively a re-review), though the status remains until the reassessment is complete (and hopefully remains a GA then along with whatever improvements you've made during the review)
• leave it as is

Note that I don't recommend a community reassessment (so I didn't list it), because no one ever comments on those, and I don't think it would be helpful, dragging on for a couple of months or more.

I did check, and Caker18 only did two GA reviews including this one; the other resulted in a fail, a quick renomination, and a pass by a regular reviewer. So that one's set.

Thanks, BM, I'll copy this over, with your remarks too? ——SN54129 01:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Serial Number 54129; it will probably save time to include all this to start with. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Moved to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations § Attending to a sock's review