Talk:Kim Jong Il/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 21:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there; I'm happy to review this article for you if you like, as revolutionary leaders are something of an interest of mine here at Wikipedia (see my work at Muammar Gaddafi and Fidel Castro). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Several errors of grammar and punctuation, and the use of isolated sentences that should be part of wider paragraphs.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead does not summarize the rest of the article, and there is much basic biographical information regarding Kim's life missing.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some sentences do not carry references. I'd have to recommend that the editor responsible for this page uses webcitation (as at Islam: The Untold Story) in order to preserve the sources; otherwise they might end up as dead links.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Many of the sources used are not reliable; this is a very contentious subject, and requires a vigorous use of sources from academic and specialist literature on the subject.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Large chunks are unreferences, so might constitute original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Far too much emphasis on western media's speculation as to Kim's health problems, and far too little on the policies which he initiated.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Thankfully (and surprisingly perhaps), I think that this article remains relatively nuetral, although could do more to reflect the views of Kim and his regime in the article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I have concerns that "File:Funeral ceremony Kim Jong-il 2011.jpg" would not count as fair use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some of the captions are very good, but others, such as "Kim Jong-il Funeral ceremony", which uses the wrong case and fails to be sufficiently descriptive, are not.
	7. Overall assessment.	Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but this is a pretty conclusive fail, being very far away from meeting even the most basic GA criteria. :( Good luck in future ventures though! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)