Talk:Han Sorya/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 20:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Sagecandor (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: I did a minor copy edit but otherwise the writing style is pretty good. Good enough for good article. I'd suggest getting some outside help from people unfamiliar with the subject matter to copy edit a little bit more for succinct flow, remove some excess verbiage, but altogether it's good.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Very good use of in-line citations, and great reference section structure, with the reference notes and the works cited working together quite well for ease of verification for others in the future.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: The article does indeed cover all the main aspects of the person, we get a good sense of his life and his impact to society through history. I would change Personal life to "Early life", but that's about it.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: At first I thought the article was a bit too hagiographic. But then I searched myself for outside reference coverage, and came back to the article to find that yes, Han Sŏrya and North Korean Literature: The Failure of Socialist Realism in DPRK is indeed cited heavily in the article. Also the article makes mention of him being involved in purges, and being purged. These are signs of good neutral presentation.
 * 5. Stable? No edit wars, no disruption, primarily nominator active in edit history going back months. Talk page shows a couple complaints from a few weeks ago, but no major arguments or conflicts.
 * 6. Images?: One image hosted on Wikimedia Commons and another fair use. 2nd has good fair use rationale. First is okay on Commons.

This article is good. It's not great, but it's good. Strongly suggest further copy editing. But it's good enough for good article. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and input, . I will keep improving the article and take your suggestions into account. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)