Template:Did you know nominations/Slavery in Korea


 * 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: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Slavery in Korea

 * ... that although slavery in Korea has been abolished for over a century, modern slavery is still a concern?
 * Reviewed: J.L.K. van Dort
 * Comment: I hope the hook is not controversial? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 14:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Reviewed by Dan arndt (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was written on 6 January 2014 - so it is new enough
 * The article however is not long enough, just under 1,500 characters, if you exclude the headings, "See also" sections, references section, table of contents, edit buttons and all the superscripts.
 * There are a couple of minor statements that require reference citations
 * It does contain a redlink, which should be removed or linked to an existing article
 * The date values in the inline citations need to be corrected
 * The article appears to be free of any copyright violations (I am unable to check a number of the offline references cited)
 * The hook is less than 200 character long, interesting, neutral and there are a number of inline citations provided that support the claim.
 * I'll go ahead and add another sentence or so, but you are totally wrong about the red link. Our policy is to encourage them, see WP:RED. Whoever told you they are not acceptable is/was wrong. Red links should never be hidden, only turned into blue links by redirects or creation of new articles. Articles should be criticized for not having enough red links, not for having too many of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (Driveby editor) Piotrus is absolutely correct about the red link. FWIW, I have an article that will be TFA in a week or so that has a couple redlinks, made it through FAC with them. Definitely OK for DYK. Carry on... Montanabw (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy to be corrected about the red link (wasn't a big issue for me). Acknowledge the expansion of the article above 1,500 characters and the inclusion of additional references. The only outstanding issue as far as I can see is correcting the date values in some of the reference citations.Dan arndt (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Date errors should be fixed now - thanks for the review! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg All outstanding issues have been addressed - this DYK nomination is good to go. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)