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

Review commentary

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]

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]

Zocky, can you be specific onto particularly which section is hard to read? I read over the article, and haven't found a particular section which may be confusing to either Korean or non-Korean readers. L46kok (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

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.