![]() | Donghak Peasant Revolution was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 19, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Donghak Peasant Revolution was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 26, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Historically, Japan's invasion of Korea was justified by Japanese historians as a "request" from Korea. In much the same way that Hitler approached his invasions as "assistance". Without getting into the heated current arguments on Japanese historical revisionism in textbooks, or on the internet by apologists or glossers-over, suffice to say that this article will be both corrected and expanded using the latest historical research as many new documents have been released and much work that was played down as inconsequential is now seen as important. Citations will be made of accurate new research. There is anticipated to be great furor as this is done, and the editors of the wiki are advised of this in advance.
A lot POV cruft in here, plus the merge issue. Any takers? -- Visviva 09:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Any change necessary?-- Seonookim ( talk) 01:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 03:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
This article appears on first pass to give a good overview of its subject, and it's clear that substantial research has gone into its development. Thanks to everybody involved for their work on it so far.
However, it seems to me that the article will still need substantial work in some areas before being ready for GA status, and for that reason I'm not listing it at this time. The biggest issue I see at a glance is copyediting; the article needs extensive corrections for spelling and grammar. You might consider making a request of the Guild of Copy Editors if you'd like an outside eye for this. I've made a very incomplete list of issues here:
Some other issues:
I hope you won't find this list discouraging. It's clear that progress is being made, and once the above issues are addressed, I hope you'll consider renominating this one. Just let me know if you have any questions, and again, thanks to everybody involved for your work on this important topic. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S. As I see it, it's not relying on web sources more than offline ones. There are 33 online sources and 46 book sources, so web sources are just 42%, and book sources are 58%. -- Seonookim ( What I've done so far) ( I'm busy here) ( Tell me your requests) 06:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
this was posted by error inside the GA review(1) and got the following comment:
Apologies. Pldx1 ( talk) 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I have read this article. My comments can be seen at User:Pldx1/Donghak. Before discussing about some semi-colons, we should better discuss about the content. I think that it remains an important work to do concerning the geolocalisations and the references.
The Donghak Peasant Revolution is one of the most important event in the history of Modern Korea. In 1894, facing a menace from their own people, the Joseon ruling classes (from the King to the provincial yangbans) were so prompt to place themselves under the protection and the direction of the Japanese armed forces. And after the massacre, they became so noisy about 'Independence club' or Yeongeunmun or what else. I hope this article will contribute to our duty of memory... and understanding. Pldx1 ( talk) 23:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have rewriten the references related to the books, in order to use the template {{sfn}} inside the text and regroup the detail of the references at the end, where they can be managed more easily. Apart from this technical move, I am now exploring what are saying the references used at History of Korea. Moreover, the subsection Role played by Donghak seems to be a central one, that should be developped and seperated from the 'fringe' controversies about the Daewongun or the Genyosha. On the contrary, the 1994 다시 피는 녹두꽃 was not only a commemoration of 1894, but a part of the movement that resulted in the 5.18 Special Law passed in 1995. I will try to work on that. Pldx1 ( talk) 18:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
And this was also posted by error inside the GA review(1) Pldx1 ( talk) 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I am becoming interested in Korean topics (as I moved here), so I am going to try to offer similar comments/support to those topics as I do at WP:POLAND. Thus, this pass by GA review comment. Sadly, I have to say this is far from GA class - I am quickfailing a B-class review due to insufficient inline citations. Please don't submit a GAN for an article where there are unreferenced paragraphs (i.e. a quickfail criteria). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Whoever passed this as a B-class for milhist: no, the citations are not adequate, there are dozens of uncited paragraphs. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk · contribs) 18:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
A lot of work has clearly gone into the article. My initial concern on reading through the article is the lack of citations in large sections:
While the GA standard doesn't require complete citation and references, this does seem minimal, and a lot of the statistics and opinions specifically aren't referenced. Is it likely that you'd be able to upgrade the referencing over the span of a review, or would it be better to go for a fail for now, and upgrade before the next review? Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
All done. Seonookim ( What I've done so far) ( I'm busy here) ( Tell me your requests) 01:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
The following will need citations:
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
This article cites a bunch of authors & books ( Donghak Peasant Revolution#Other books) with the name/title "미상" (misang). "Misang" means "unknown" or "unidentified" in Korean. These cannot possibly be valid citations. Citing an "unidentified" book is tantamount to admitting you don't know what book you're trying to cite and you've never seen it.
Some of these might be books that were cited in the Korean version of this article (e.g. "The Founding of Cheondoism" by "John Misang" might be 이돈화, 《천도교 창건사》 (천도교중앙종리원, 1950)). Others I'm not sure. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 14:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition, I'm looking at citations added by Pldx1. Sure are these sources not from the year "9999", so care to explain what's going on here? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear User:Finnusertop. Pldx1 has never added any citations to this article. On August 2013, there have been some attempts to push this article to the GA status. In order to make my opinion about this article, I have reorganized the bibliography, moving everything at the bottom of the paper (and using Harvard refs to link the text to the biblio). Missing names were missing, missing years were missing. My review can be seen at User:Pldx1/Donghak. And now, five years later, we have the same problems than before. Good luck if you want to fix them ! It remains that this Donghak Revolution is a key event in the whole history of Korea. Pldx1 ( talk) 18:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The lowest estimate for their forces is 3000, but the casualties are 6000? 2A02:1810:251F:EE00:7477:49EC:CD84:BECF ( talk) 16:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Surprised that even in the Korean article there's no picture for the event in the infobox. Can anyone find or draw anything for it? toobigtokale ( talk) 02:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Imo the article is currently pretty hard to understand and needs a significant rewrite in order to be more useful to the average reader. I think the background section needs to be improved; needs more info about the wide geopolitical situation that led to this.
In addition, the details are presented confusingly. A lot of data is presented with extremely sparse context; names of people and places are thrown around with little context and indication of why they are important.
If someone's interested in working on this article, it may just be easier to scrap most of it and write it from scratch using a few good sources as reference. I've improved some stylistic things, but they're band-aids on a more fundamental problem of confusing writing. toobigtokale ( talk) 04:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Donghak Peasant Revolution was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 19, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Donghak Peasant Revolution was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 26, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Historically, Japan's invasion of Korea was justified by Japanese historians as a "request" from Korea. In much the same way that Hitler approached his invasions as "assistance". Without getting into the heated current arguments on Japanese historical revisionism in textbooks, or on the internet by apologists or glossers-over, suffice to say that this article will be both corrected and expanded using the latest historical research as many new documents have been released and much work that was played down as inconsequential is now seen as important. Citations will be made of accurate new research. There is anticipated to be great furor as this is done, and the editors of the wiki are advised of this in advance.
A lot POV cruft in here, plus the merge issue. Any takers? -- Visviva 09:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Any change necessary?-- Seonookim ( talk) 01:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 03:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
This article appears on first pass to give a good overview of its subject, and it's clear that substantial research has gone into its development. Thanks to everybody involved for their work on it so far.
However, it seems to me that the article will still need substantial work in some areas before being ready for GA status, and for that reason I'm not listing it at this time. The biggest issue I see at a glance is copyediting; the article needs extensive corrections for spelling and grammar. You might consider making a request of the Guild of Copy Editors if you'd like an outside eye for this. I've made a very incomplete list of issues here:
Some other issues:
I hope you won't find this list discouraging. It's clear that progress is being made, and once the above issues are addressed, I hope you'll consider renominating this one. Just let me know if you have any questions, and again, thanks to everybody involved for your work on this important topic. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S. As I see it, it's not relying on web sources more than offline ones. There are 33 online sources and 46 book sources, so web sources are just 42%, and book sources are 58%. -- Seonookim ( What I've done so far) ( I'm busy here) ( Tell me your requests) 06:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
this was posted by error inside the GA review(1) and got the following comment:
Apologies. Pldx1 ( talk) 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I have read this article. My comments can be seen at User:Pldx1/Donghak. Before discussing about some semi-colons, we should better discuss about the content. I think that it remains an important work to do concerning the geolocalisations and the references.
The Donghak Peasant Revolution is one of the most important event in the history of Modern Korea. In 1894, facing a menace from their own people, the Joseon ruling classes (from the King to the provincial yangbans) were so prompt to place themselves under the protection and the direction of the Japanese armed forces. And after the massacre, they became so noisy about 'Independence club' or Yeongeunmun or what else. I hope this article will contribute to our duty of memory... and understanding. Pldx1 ( talk) 23:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have rewriten the references related to the books, in order to use the template {{sfn}} inside the text and regroup the detail of the references at the end, where they can be managed more easily. Apart from this technical move, I am now exploring what are saying the references used at History of Korea. Moreover, the subsection Role played by Donghak seems to be a central one, that should be developped and seperated from the 'fringe' controversies about the Daewongun or the Genyosha. On the contrary, the 1994 다시 피는 녹두꽃 was not only a commemoration of 1894, but a part of the movement that resulted in the 5.18 Special Law passed in 1995. I will try to work on that. Pldx1 ( talk) 18:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
And this was also posted by error inside the GA review(1) Pldx1 ( talk) 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I am becoming interested in Korean topics (as I moved here), so I am going to try to offer similar comments/support to those topics as I do at WP:POLAND. Thus, this pass by GA review comment. Sadly, I have to say this is far from GA class - I am quickfailing a B-class review due to insufficient inline citations. Please don't submit a GAN for an article where there are unreferenced paragraphs (i.e. a quickfail criteria). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Whoever passed this as a B-class for milhist: no, the citations are not adequate, there are dozens of uncited paragraphs. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk · contribs) 18:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
A lot of work has clearly gone into the article. My initial concern on reading through the article is the lack of citations in large sections:
While the GA standard doesn't require complete citation and references, this does seem minimal, and a lot of the statistics and opinions specifically aren't referenced. Is it likely that you'd be able to upgrade the referencing over the span of a review, or would it be better to go for a fail for now, and upgrade before the next review? Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
All done. Seonookim ( What I've done so far) ( I'm busy here) ( Tell me your requests) 01:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
The following will need citations:
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
This article cites a bunch of authors & books ( Donghak Peasant Revolution#Other books) with the name/title "미상" (misang). "Misang" means "unknown" or "unidentified" in Korean. These cannot possibly be valid citations. Citing an "unidentified" book is tantamount to admitting you don't know what book you're trying to cite and you've never seen it.
Some of these might be books that were cited in the Korean version of this article (e.g. "The Founding of Cheondoism" by "John Misang" might be 이돈화, 《천도교 창건사》 (천도교중앙종리원, 1950)). Others I'm not sure. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 14:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition, I'm looking at citations added by Pldx1. Sure are these sources not from the year "9999", so care to explain what's going on here? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear User:Finnusertop. Pldx1 has never added any citations to this article. On August 2013, there have been some attempts to push this article to the GA status. In order to make my opinion about this article, I have reorganized the bibliography, moving everything at the bottom of the paper (and using Harvard refs to link the text to the biblio). Missing names were missing, missing years were missing. My review can be seen at User:Pldx1/Donghak. And now, five years later, we have the same problems than before. Good luck if you want to fix them ! It remains that this Donghak Revolution is a key event in the whole history of Korea. Pldx1 ( talk) 18:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The lowest estimate for their forces is 3000, but the casualties are 6000? 2A02:1810:251F:EE00:7477:49EC:CD84:BECF ( talk) 16:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Surprised that even in the Korean article there's no picture for the event in the infobox. Can anyone find or draw anything for it? toobigtokale ( talk) 02:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Imo the article is currently pretty hard to understand and needs a significant rewrite in order to be more useful to the average reader. I think the background section needs to be improved; needs more info about the wide geopolitical situation that led to this.
In addition, the details are presented confusingly. A lot of data is presented with extremely sparse context; names of people and places are thrown around with little context and indication of why they are important.
If someone's interested in working on this article, it may just be easier to scrap most of it and write it from scratch using a few good sources as reference. I've improved some stylistic things, but they're band-aids on a more fundamental problem of confusing writing. toobigtokale ( talk) 04:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)