Talk:Smoking in North Korea/GA1

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

Reviewer: Stingray Trainer (talk · contribs) 08:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
''This article needs further work before it can be considered to be of GA status. The scope and information itself is fairly good, but the style of writing and prose needs work. I have placed the overall GA status as 'on-hold' to give you a few days to make any improvements and discuss any points. However, I feel that once you have corrected some of the minor changes this article will still require a considerable Copy-Edit from an editor who has no yet been involved in the project and can independently assess and improve the article prose, flow and language.''
 * Thank you for initiating the review, . I have made certain changes (see edit history) but need clarification for any further improvements.


 * Concerning 1.b., MOS:QUOTE is not among those MoS sections that need to be complied with for GA status. As a friendly suggestion it is welcome, of course. Regardless, I'd like you to consider WP:V: "If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution", which is exactly what is done here. Note that I accompany each such in-text attribute with an inline citation that contains the full details of the source.


 * Concerning 1.a., I believe I've improved the prose by changing the order of some passages, fixing a few typos and using more idiomatic and flowing expressions. If there is more room for improvement, please be specific. Note that there are limits (e.g. WP:SYNTH) on how these facts can be presented. If a source doesn't say that some facts are related, I cannot call them related here either.


 * Concerning 3.b., please be more specific. I give two different figures for different groups: Daily smokers smoke 12.4 cigarettes per day; this does not add up with 609.67 cigarettes per person per year, because the latter figure is for all North Koreans and not just daily smokers. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Having further reviewed the work and reminded myself of some of the GA/MoS requirements I am content that you are correct that they comply with Wiki policies to an extent that I could not challenge them. I probably would not write in that manner, but that is personal choice and not a reason to question it. I have updated the sections of the table that I feel are now compliment with GA status.


 * However, I still feel that concerning 1.a, there is significant improvement to be made to the manner in which the article is written to bring the prose up to a standard that I feel is what a GA should be. An example of this would be -


 * "Daily smokers smoke 12.4 cigarettes per day on average; the average for men is 15. Smokers pick up the habit at the age of 23 years on average. Smoking rates increase with age until the age group of 55–64, when it starts to decline. The urban working population smokes slightly more than farmers.
 * This is a list of 4 points that really should be combined into a sentence along the lines of:
 * "The average smoker consumes 12.4 cigarettes per day, with this figure rising slightly to 15 per day when just male smokers are considered. The average smoker starts smoking at aged 23 and the percentage of the population that smokes (NOTE: or the number of cigarettes smoked - not sure which one you mean!) increases with age until the 55-64 age group, after which it declines. On average urban smokers tend to smoke more cigarettes per day than rural farmers.
 * Although this is a slightly longer sentence, it flows better and is less like a list, but at the same time has not altered the facts and figures as they have been presented by the sources.


 * This problem is found throughout the article and in nearly all the sections, which is why i suggest this article needs a copy-edit by someone who can put the time in to improve the prose rather than just try to edit individual points that I highlight here. I appologise I cannot be very specific and list all the points I feel are not correct within the prose, but I do not have the time to copyedit this myself. If you disagree with my assessment then please feel free to ask for another opinion and see what other people think. We all have different ways of viewing articles and assessing them against the criteria. The article has huge potential to be of GA status (well researched, cited etc), but just needs a but more work on the writing to get it over the standard. Stingray Trainer (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarifications. I agree with your current assessment concerning prose. I've introduced better flow in my edits today and will continue with improvements tomorrow. Hopefully I can bring the prose up to standard by Saturday. I hope to get someone else to give it a read and/or copyedit. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Further improvements were made today. I hope that you can point out any possible remaining issues with the article. In any case, I expect to make the required changes by Saturday. Just a friendly reminder though: WP:GACR calls for "clear and concise" prose, which should be more easily attained than WP:FACR's requirement for prose that is "engaging and of a professional standard". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have found time today to have another good look at the article and have made some fairly sweeping changes to the flow and prose to bring it more up to the standard that I expect a good article to be. As previously said, the content itself was there, it just needed a good review and some re-writing. Please excuse any typos/spelling errors as it was done quite quickly.
 * Still to do:
 * I have not been able to do the 'culture' section due to time and noting that this is a very chaotic section that needs to be re-written and re-focused. I suggest working out exactly what needs to be said and cutting it down to make it shorter and easier to read. Once this is done I can have another look.
 * There is also a point in the 'law' section where the information contradicts itself on whether you can or cannot smoke on public transport - suggest checking this section and fixing this.


 * Once these points are fixed I think the article will be fairly good for another GA review. As I have now got involved in the editing I probably should not approve it myself and suggest that we re-nominate for GA review. Although this will add a little delay, it is more robust and ensures we are not skipping things just to chase the GA status. I hope you approve of the changes, but, as ever, if you disagree then please make changes back or discuss with me here. Stingray Trainer (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've checked your prose and fixed a few typos. I've also sought to address the two remaining problems you had identified:
 * I've re-organized the Culture section, splitting it into History and Culture, and subsections in the latter. This hopefully gives the reader a better idea of the various aspects that were previously mashed together. I don't see a need to cut it down in size after this measure. I think it's an accurate and concise summary of reliable sources out there without going into excess detail or trivia.
 * I've resolved the contradiction. The section no longer claims that smoking is banned on public transport, since it ostensibly isn't banned on some forms of public transport.
 * If you are happy with these changes, you still have time to close the review as Pass. If not, then I'll consider your proposal to re-nominate it at a later date after some more fixes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have read through the article and made a couple of further tweaks, but agree that the changes you have made are an improvement and suitable. I have mixed feelings about this article, as it is now much improved, but there is always room for further improvement. As a newish reviewer I might just be expecting things to be better than they actually need to be for GA status, so I have asked for a second opinion from a more experienced reviewer who can give their view. In principle I think it now meets all the criteria for GA status, but I'm just not precisely sure where the quality line sits. A second opinion will ensure that the article is of the correct quality for the classification that it gets. Stingray Trainer (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, . If you haven't asked already, you could try to do so at WT:Good article nominations. As I understand it, your reservations are about 1.a., and asking someone to double check that criteria sounds reasonable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like we got archived, : Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 22. That's a bit unusual, usually the GA community is very helpful and responsive. Pinging the only user who probably clicked on the article link, just in case they are interested:.

Thanks zzz (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * zzz (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I missed it, but is this source even used at all: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/1986135/smokers-paradise-north-korea-now-urging-people-quit-though-kim? If this is going to be a GA, I would strongly suggest using sources that are not from South Korea, for obvious reasons. (Or the WHO, almost the only other source in the article).zzz (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC) And btw, smoking newspaper absolutely kills. I am very doubtful of this.
 * Failing that, it looks like the ball is back in your court, Stingray Trainer. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have added it again to the GAN page with some further clarification and a better title. Someone might kick off about this, but I would rather get help than just let this rest. If we don't get a response this time I will have another look and move things forward. Stingray Trainer (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

regarding your message here, I was happy to do the following:
 * 1) If this is about the recommended number of paragraphs in WP:LEADELEMENTS, I've restored the current number (three) from a few revisions back. If it's something else, please let me know.
 * Hi, sorry for not being clearer. I meant adding a bit of more content. I'm thinking two short paragraphs that an adequate summary of the intro (like the History section too) should be fine. As of now, the three paragraphs are way too short and I think one paragraph would work better. Other than that, nice job with this article and thanks for working on this. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 15:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) I've added the years in the lead. I feel like these two numbers need to be in the lead. Smoking rate is the single most important number in an article about smoking. The death rate is noteworthy because it's the highest in the world.
 * 2) Not one of these citations is redundant here. Coverage on laws was pretty spotty and I had to use all four sources to compile this. You can verify it if you want. I dislike lazy citation bombing just as much.
 * 3) I believe there are no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues as we've covered them with the reviewer . – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the improvements suggests are what I would expect from someone who has read the article (as requested) but not done an analysis of the work that has already been done (as also expected).


 * 1) I fully support point 1: actually the summary just covers some of the articles key points; it should overview everything in slight detail. I feel I can fix this best within the next few days.
 * 2) 2. See above point.
 * 3) 3Finnusertop, you are right in some forms. You could argue that no evidence is bad evidence, but at the same time too much poo/average/complex evidence can be confusing and ruin the point. We should review exactly how much proof is required and cite the required source only in my opinion (it is unlikely to be contentious point, so the lack of multiple sources at this time should not be a barrier).
 * 4) Here I believe we have covered in detail in our back'n'forth. I think this point will either be approved or denied by a reviewer in time when they look a  the article in more detail. For now I think we fix the other points and see what happens. Stingray Trainer (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Final comments
Thank you for your updates. I think the article is very close to promotion. Would you mind expanding the introduction by adding info from the History and Culture sections? I would say you could add them in the second paragraph since it is shorter. This will give a better overview of the article for readers. Ping me and I will take a quick look at it. Big thanks! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 14:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lead as advised. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)