Wikipedia:Featured article review/Korean name/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 00:02, 20 March 2008.
Korean name edit
Review commentary edit
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea, User:TakuyaMurata, User:Kjoonlee, User:Sewing, User:Visviva notified.
The article is poorly written and poorly organised. Referencing is not FA standard. Also, is it comprehensive? --Kaypoh (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was reviewed a year ago. I don't see problems; please identify the issues you see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreferenced paragraphs, short paragraphs, long lead section, article looks messy. When I say all the sentences, a few things don't sound right (that's how I check for language problems because my English is not that good). A few others pointed out problems. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is indeed badly organized and badly worded in spots, but it contains quite a lot of useful information. With a total reorganization and thorough copyeditting, it should be alright. Zocky | picture popups 12:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it that the Featured Article standards have increased dramatically or that the article has fallen into disrepair? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some information on the specific concerns would be helpful. -- Visviva (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. These comments are all rather vague and of little use; without identifying specific problems, I'm not sure what people expect to be done with the article. PC78 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one thing that is relatively easy to take care of is better formatting for the notes. I'm planning to set aside some time for that this weekend. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I formatted some of the References, also clustered References and External Links by language. Rosiestephenson (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one thing that is relatively easy to take care of is better formatting for the notes. I'm planning to set aside some time for that this weekend. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. These comments are all rather vague and of little use; without identifying specific problems, I'm not sure what people expect to be done with the article. PC78 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the most glaring problems were fixed by my rewrite of the intro, however, the article still has problems:
- It's unclear whether women in South Korea have generational names at all (I assumed that they do in the intro, but the section is unclear on that).
- There's barely any information about common personal names.
- All sections confusing to read in places.
- Some of the history section is not directly about the names.
- There's no overall feel to the article that it represents a solid overview of the subject.
- Hope that helps somewhat. Zocky | picture popups 10:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove --Kaypoh (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove some sources like the *.com and the "Do" are websites with uncertain reliability, lack of citations, bad prose. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.