Talk:Prince Hodong and the Princess of Nakrang
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tnrud23. Peer reviewers: Lstofko, EWLung.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Naming of the page
editThe naming of this page is prone to controversy. First of all, was the Princess
- the Princess of 낙랑군, i.e. Lelang Commandery (using the Chinese romanization) or
- the Princess of 낙랑국, i.e. an independent Nakrang Kindom ?
Second, the question is not about automated Romanization, but about how the tale is mostly known in the outer, English speaking, world. And here, we have Nakrang.
Anyway, controversial moves have to be discussed before proceeding.
Pldx1 (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Some references:
- About the 1956 movie. http://www.asiandb.com/browse/movie_detail.php?code=3337,
- Prince Hodong and Princess Nakrang: A tragic love in a time of war, http://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Culture/view?articleId=121980
- Kings and Queens of Korea, King Daemusin, 4th §: http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/program/program_dynasty_detail.htm?No=10035392
- Even advertizers: http://www.koreanagifts.com/ktdv-20-vintage-prince-hodong-and-princess-nakrang-dolls !
- Google "princess nangnang" matches circa 500, "princess nakrang" matches circa 1500. By the way, using "princess of x" matches only 50 (each).
Prince Hodong and the Princess of Nakrang
editLead Section: Your article has a really strong beginning and your sentences are written really well! I like the first sentence because it does a good job explaining what the legend is going to be about overall. I also like that you initially explained when the story took place and under which rule it occurred. I also like that you went on to explain different characters, and an overall synopsis of the article. However, I did get a little bit confused about the characters and locations since there is not any background on them. I suggest maybe adding in a summary subsection into your article so that those who have never heard of the story can get a good idea what it's about. Your lead section does reflect the most important information of the article and nothing seems redundant. Structure: When I first went onto your wikipedia page, I was really impressed by your structuring of your article. I like that you have 5 different sections, all with their own relevance. I also really like that you included other narratives and where this story can be seen in places other than a book. I also like that you added a notes section and that your list for it is pretty extensive. The sections are in a sensible order. Coverage: Each section is of a pretty good length and I think you did a good job balancing how long they are. Like I said earlier, I think that you should add a more extensive "summary" section so that readers who don't know about the story already can get a better gage for what the story's about. There aren't any unnecessary aspects of the article and I like that you added the "Other narratives" and "Nakrang Kingdom versus Leland Commandery section". Nothing is off-topic. I believe that the article reflects all the perspectives represented in the published literature but my knowledge of this myth is limited so there may be other perspectives that I am missing. The article does not draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view. Content: I think you did a really good job with the amount of content you included thus far! You stayed neutral throughout your entire article and did kept all of your vocabulary and wording neutral as well. The article doesn't make claims on behalf of unnamed groups either. As I stated above, I think you should add a summary section. Sources: Both of your sources that I found in your references section look very reputable and reliable. Both of them are published by a credible agency. I think that there's a good balance of which of the sources you used to cite but I think that you may want to add a citation in under your lead section because there is a lot of information in there that you may have gotten from one or both of your sources.
Overall, I think you did a really nice job on your article thus far! I would suggest also that in "The Samguk Sagi", you add either the proper letter following (a.d., b.c., b.c.e. etc.) after 1145. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lstofko (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)