Talk:Lee Yeongdo/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. There are quite a few issues, mainly with sourcing, that prevent the article from being a GA at this time. Here are my thoughts:


 * Citation needed tag in After Hitel section.
 * Three citation needed tags in Style and major themes section - the majority of this section in unsourced.
 * Primary sources should not be used where it could be possible that the article subject is promoting himself or where statistics are given about the subject's works - it is best to use secondary sources in these instances. Some examples:
 * Ref #4 (Lee, Yeongdo (1998). Dragon Raja.), used to source "He is best known for his Dragon Raja series of fantasy novels"
 * Same ref, "The chapters quickly gained popularity and readers began waiting online for Lee to post the new ones,"
 * Same ref, "Through its 6-month running, Dragon Raja accumulated 900,000 hits,"
 * Ref #16 (Click!) - link deadlinks
 * Ref #23 (Dragon Raja) - you cannot source to other Wikipedia articles.
 * Ref #30 (Funnyvil) - link deadlinks, and what makes this a reliable source?
 * Non-English references need to state what language they are in.
 * Some web references missing publishers.
 * Way too many short, choppy subsections. For example, in the Adaptations section, you don't need a separate subsection for every few sentences. Combine them, use prose bridges to move from one topic to another, and try to tie them together as a cohesive whole.
 * Clarification needed in some spots. For example, "There were talks of publishing Dragon Raja in the United States in 2006, to which Lee's response was "I don't want to disgrace our country."" - why would publishing it in the US be a disgrace?
 * The prose needs a good scrubbing - in just a quick glance I'm seeing contractions (didn't), messy punctuation and poor grammar.
 * Website in infobox is a deadlink.

I think that addressing the above issues would be better done outside of the time constraints of the GA process, especially with the breadth of the referencing issues. Because of that, I am failing the article's GA nomination. The article may be renominated whenever it is felt that the above comments have been addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)