Talk:Proposed Peace Treaty on the Korean Peninsula

Feedback - ver 11/Aug/2018 : Draft:Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula
Hi, PLEASE ADVISE ME the necessary revision of the contents to be updated. From my understanding, it meets the three rules Notability Neutral point of view, Verifiability. examples, changing the subject -> The Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula or other shorter versions, I updated the subject part on the content "A peace treaty" to "The peace treaty" as per the advice from the experienced Wikipedia user Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My first thought is that there is some copyediting needed, e.g., removing duplicate links and changing "Kim Jung-un" to "Kim Jong-un". Links only need to be linked once, when they first appear in the article. It is not a major issue however. I will keep looking. —   python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 12:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi User:pythoncoder, Thank you for your kind advice and guidance. I will try to improve those items in the article as well.

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * removing duplicate links
 * changing "Kim Jung-un" to "Kim Jong-un". and
 * Links only need to be linked once,

The feedback -1
Please summary of the feedback from the user:Mortee (start of the summary) - Looking at it quickly, it seems to be fairly well structured and it has lots of wikilinks and references, which is good. The big question for someone reviewing this will probably be whether an article about this treaty is the right place to put this information, since there is no treaty and no clear sign that there will be one. That might mean the reviewer sees the subject as speculation. Maybe the same information can be added to existing articles, e.g. 2018 North Korea–United States summit, if it's not already covered there. There's no requirement to wait for AfC, necessarily. Mortee talk  23 August 2018 (UTC) (The end of the summary) -

It can be covered by Notability,WP:10YT, Verifiability on Policies and guidelines I believe that it could be extracted as per the current public statement of the leaders of the five major countries: US, China, Russia, DPRK and South Korea. All of them now support the ending the Korean war and establish the Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula. Especially, it is now all documented officially on the two documents which are [|the Joint Statement] and Panmunjom Declaration. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the potential issue- WP:CRYSTAL,

The feedback -2
Please refer to the feedback from the user:JC7V7DC5768


 * Hi, I looked at your draft, and on a casual glance it looks good. But I have some suggestions.
 * 1) An infobox would be great to have in this article to summarize key points in an easy, concise way (for example see Camp_David_Accords and Cuban_thaw articles with infoboxes.
 * 2) Maybe tweaking your 'reactions' section to be like the reactions section in this article would be a good move.
 * 3) Maybe more sources (and some things in the article may need more than one source). Many of the best articles on Wikipedia have a lot of sources (I know its more about quality than quanity but why not have both quality and quantitative sources).
 * 4) Maybe expand and offer more details on the treaty itself in the article, including conditions and the sort.
 * If I was an AFC reviewer I would have accepted your draft but highlighted the above key points. Good luck JC7V -constructive zone  16:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi User:JC7V7DC5768, Thank you for your professional advice. I am deeply impressed with your insight on how to improve the article Draft: Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula. I would upgrade the article with the four recommended action items as soon as practicable. I reckon that your insight of Wikipedia was not built in a day. Thank you for sharing your wisdom. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Progress of the four action items:


 * 1) An infobox would be great to have in this article: "Done" Goodtiming8871 (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Maybe tweaking your 'reactions' section to be like the reactions section in this article would be a good move: "Done" Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Structure
There seems to be duplication in the structure with "History" and "Timeline". The "timeline" isn't a timeline. Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)