User:Jlk004/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I'm evaluating the article Jung Myung-seok.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I heard about this case a while ago, and I am interested in the topic of cults. The JMS scandal was extremely huge in South Korea and since was popularized in the West due to the Netflix special made about it earlier this year. This article matters because it is an important record of the life and crimes of a nefarious cult leader. My preliminary impression was that it was credible but that it contained a few typos.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The Lead Section is adequately concise and descriptive. There is nothing written in the lead section that is not mentioned later in the article. However, the last paragraph seems to be repeated in the following section without any expansion.

The Tone of the article seems relatively neutral. Though the crimes detailed are shocking, there is nothing about the reporting of them that seems biased or persuasive towards any end.

The Sources are largely online newspaper articles, and they seem credible. There are a variety of different sources, and all the links I checked are working.

The article is concise and easy-to-read, but there are a few grammar and punctuation errors that could be contested. There are some organizational choices I would disagree with, including the fact that JMS' nicknames are listed twice, once in the Lead Section and once under his description. I feel that could be reorganized.

The only image found in the article is the image of JMS himself. It is captioned "Jung Myung-seok, founder of Providence" without any detail as to where the picture was taken, but it's unclear whether that is necessary.

The Talk page includes some interesting conversations about how to cite information reported by the AP that itself cited "South Korean press" without specifying further. There is more talk on the inconsistencies in the spelling of JMS' name (anglicized from Korean), and a lot of discussion on potentially biased sources. There was an issue brought up about the fact that there are so many more sources written in Korean than English, but that it is so much more difficult to defend these sources' neutrality to an English-speaking community. I think these issues are similar to the ones that have been brought up in class, but the people discussing it here are obviously much more emphatic about these topics.

The article seems fairly complete; it's been around for a long time and there doesn't seem to have been many major updates to it even since the Netflix special this year. Again, the grammar is questionable at points, and there are a few things I would reorganize, but it is very well-cited and there is no bias detectable from reading it.