Template:Did you know nominations/History of Korean animation


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem templates on article never addressed

History of Korean animation

 * ... that important animated characters in the history of Korean animation include Dooly the Little Dinosaur, Pororo the Little Penguin and Larva?

Created by Flyordie0716 (talk), Berlinuno (talk), and Beatlehoon (talk). Nominated by Berlinuno (talk) at 06:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg Good to go: date, hook, image & everything else appear fine. Interesting topic. AGF on Korean references.Alexikoua (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The article needs a copyedit for English grammar. It also needs to be improved in the areas of the lead and presentation. It does not read like an encyclopedia article, but like a chatty magazine article. I have tagged it for these issues. Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this should be merged with Korean animation? Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think the language issues are bad enough to stop this from going to DYK, through the merger is an interesting point. If merged, the new article might not fall under 5x expansion, through of course the target Korean animation is lower quality (mostly unreferenced). I am not sure if we should merge them... and since you have not added the merge tag, this is a bit of a moot question, is it? PS. I have merged parts of the article, but I think the dedicated history article can exist as a stand-alone one. I think the lead is ok, and the article can be DYKed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The History section in Korean animation is in dire need of sourcing, which this article has. It doesn't make sense to have a fork when the main article is so skimpy. I went ahead and started a merge proposal. Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess we will put this DYK on hold for a month or two while we see if there is consensus for merge or not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Piotrus, articles that are tagged with templates such as copyedit and inadequate lead cannot be promoted per DYK rules, so the fact that there's a merge template is basically irrelevant if the article isn't promotable to begin with. If the article's problems in these two areas plus the issue of tone (chatty magazine vs. the desired encyclopedic) aren't being dealt with in a week—it's been over two since the issues were tagged—then this will be marked for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg It has been over a week since the above, and still no work has been done on the article. Marking for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)