Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC).

1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea

 * Nominator(s): --Ruling party (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated the list 1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea. It shows the composition of the communist leadership for a given period. I'm planning to nominate the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th as well.

I've also tried to give short historical summaries of the given period in question; what the communist leadership did and of course the steady accumulation of power by Kim Il-sung and the Kim family. Hopefully the eighth lists will be able to give the common folk a basic understanding of how Kim Il-sung became the Supreme Leader and how the country became the oxymoronic communist monarchy.

I'm happy to get any comments. --Ruling party (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments
 * Support - the hidden content thing isn't that big a deal I guess -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I used to consider myself one of the foremost experts on North Korean politics and the WP(N)K. But that, of course, was before came along! This list is a fantastic work. The information itself is straightforward and easily available. The sources are good and familiar to me; I think both I and Ruling party count ourselves among fans of professor Dae-Sook Suh. What Ruling party has excelled at here is not that comparatively easy task of sourcing but instead designing this list so as to include many relevant data and display them in an appealing yet usable way. I've no complains about the actual list contents and, to reiterate, the design choices are excellent. I, too, am not a huge fan of collapsed content but this might just be one of those exceptions listed at MOS:DONTHIDE and is well reasoned for above. The only, and minor, complaints I can launch are about the citation style of the two references: and Korean Affairs Report.

should use ko:Ⅲ. 북조선임시인민위원회 조직과 역할 and optionally ko.

Korean Affairs Report is a serial work so please use something like cite journal that makes the title italic and please include the number. Additionally use an identifier of some sort. You are also citing some pages, so identify those. You can see how I've used this work e.g. here.

You could also cite these two sources in the similar short footnote style as the rest (though I myself sometimes oscillate between all short footnotes and short footnotes for just the sources I cite multiple times at different locations).

Lastly, on a tangential note, I like finding articles for redlinked names from other language Wikipedias and use ill. You can consider it, though I also think it would make your list a bit less elegant and clear. So, instead I recommend that you become a biographer as well and start writing articles for some of the more interesting early WPK figures! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words!


 * 1) I've used the cite journal template. Good?
 * 2) Standardised as suggested! OK?
 * 3) I tried the tl template, but only one of the red links were translated into Korean. I'll try to write more biographical articles in the future! :) --Ruling party (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Approved? :) --Ruling party (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Sorry, ! I forgot. After having reviewed the Featured List Criteria, I'm going to support it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): while the tables have column scopes, they are missing a caption and rowscopes, and have column headers in the middle of the table.
 * ✅ Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ `
 * ✅ For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| 1st Plenary Session` it should be `!scope="row"| 1st Plenary Session`. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="wikitable"`; that said you seem to be trying to manually recreate this look in the members table with background colors.
 * ✅ Column headers not at the top of tables like "References" are contraindicated as screen reading software trips on them, see Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. Please remove; for references one way to do it is to put the reference in the first cell of the header or else in text before, though with 6 references in the members table you might want to just make a reference column and cite each row to the right reference.
 * -- Pres N  14:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did two of them, and the third too.... but it looks absolutely awful. THe problem with the third examples is that those columns are in the way of sorting columns. THe intention of this column is to be at the bottom unsortable. Making another column does not seems like the solution. For instance, am I supposed to list one source 383 times in the list 3rd Supreme People's Assembly? I would also add that adding for instance 9 refs in one column on the list 8th National Assembly of Laos (if I were to follow you're advice) would make the list very unforgiving.
 * The example you refer to don't mention columns at the bottom of the table, just middle. I think you are wrong here. I would very much like to revert back to the original way of referencing.. --Ruling party (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ You put 'scope="col"' instead of 'scope="row"' for the row tag, and you put it on two different cells in each row. It should just be in one; presumably the romanized name column since it's first.
 * ✅ The caption is supposed to be a title of the table, not "References". They're not the "references" tables. I recommend just doing Plenary sessions and Members, and probably putting them in the sronly template like I mentioned.
 * ✅ I didn't mean you should put the reference in the caption, I meant you might put it in the header like "Plenum[18]". And while I didn't look too closely at the time since I was trying to do Access reviews for 45 lists at once, I really don't think it's appropriate to have 6 wildly different references as "general references" for a 43-row table. They should be attached to what they're actually being used for, unless you're saying that all 6 are used for every single row- and even then, it'd be better to attach them to the column(s) that they're sourcing. It's absolutely not clear right now, as a reader, which source of 6 to look at to verify that Kim Tu-bong was a Yanan, or was reelected to the 2nd committee.
 * I've replied below When I did this Access Review pass, I only looked at a few specific things; looking at this list again, while I don't want to do a full review, I see a few more issues related to accessibility: the collapsed text and the garish colors. The collapsed text in the tables is hiding information from the reader, and it's not clear why- none of them are that long, and the tables aren't that wide. They should just be out and visible. The garish colors are the almost neon green and orange in the 2nd CC column- I don't actually know if they violate any access requirements, though I don't think they do, but they are very bright and stand out way more than the surrounding pastel colors for no clear reason. -- Pres N  22:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously you know way more about Wikipedia than I do :) I've fixed the things you mentioned. I'm still against referencing each column individually—it looks ugly. I've added an explainer on each table ref to explain what it references.


 * As for collapsed table—they do two things; it gives me space to showcase the level of government and it tidies up the table. See 19th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. It also gives readers the ability to sort each office by where in the government it is (and not alphabetical, which would not make any sense to do). I'm still working on filling the tables. It seems to be extremely hard, but there has to be a source out there. Maybe I have to find a book from the 1940s to get an answer :P


 * garish? I had to look that word up in the dictionary. I myself have no problem seeing the text, but if you have I'll change it. Would the colour BFFF00 be any better? Do you have a colour suggestion?


 * Thanks for taking you're time to review this list. I am very grateful! --Ruling party (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ?? --Ruling party (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest swapping the GreenYellow to LightGreen and the Died one to LightPink, that way their all "light" pastel colors; I don't think bright lime green is better, no. -- Pres N  19:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Anything else? --Ruling party (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, those colors are less jarring. I still think that the collapsed text should be uncollapsed (I agree with having a heading to allow sortability), but I'll leave that to the other reviewers to decide. -- Pres N  19:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Great comments. I'll respond to them by the end of the weekend. --Ruling party (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for using you're spare time to review the list! --Ruling party (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything good? --Ruling party (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Version reviewed:


 * Formatting
 * Please mark ref 22 as in Korean, with "|language=Korean"
 * For 22 as well, the English translation of the title should be under the parameter "|trans-title=" — not just put after the Korean title
 * Ah ha, now here's a nitpick, in ref 22 you have "1946–48" but the page ranges only have a single digit for ranges
 * Why no link for University of California Press, but for the others?


 * Reliability
 * First rate, no issues here


 * Verifiability
 * To increase verifiability, I would suggest adding an OCLC number (with "|oclc=") to Paik (found here).
 * That seems to be it; good work. Aza24 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done :) --Ruling party (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank for your attentiveness! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

With the recent discussion at WT:FLC, I'll add my comments to help bring this nomination closer to consensus. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Done The infobox colors are somewhat close for accessibility – per MOS:COLOR, contrast should meet WCAG's AA level and preferably AAA level. According to the tool I used (link), the yellow font and red background meet the former but not the latter. I'm not too worried about it, but if you get some time, it might be worth changing the colors to increase the contrast. (I realize there are other North Korea, USSR, etc. templates that probably use the same color scheme due to its use in communist flags, so use your judgement here.)
 * Done No need for quotes around "Plenary Session of the 1st Central Committee" or "Enlarged Plenary Session" in lead
 * Done Also, Plenary Session of the 1st Central Committee → Plenary Sessions of the 1st Central Committee and Enlarged Plenary Session → Enlarged Plenary Sessions
 * Done For two-digit numbers in lead, pick either digits (i.e., 22) or words (i.e., twenty-two) and stick with that format
 * Done (...) → [...]
 * Done "While the Yanan faction, formed by Korean revolutionaries based in China during Japanese rule, had the most representation on the committee." – sentence fragment
 * Done North O Ki-sop was accused → North, O Ki-sop, was accused
 * Done Table headings already use bold font, so remove the manual bold font (  symbol) to prevent double bolding
 * Done As people have pointed out before, there is no need to collapse text in tables. This type of formatting is discouraged per MOS:COLLAPSE.
 * Done Noter → Notes
 * Thanks for taking you're time! :) I'll the problems shortly. --Ruling party (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK? :) --Ruling party (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Support – can't wait to see more of these lists at FLC! RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! :) --Ruling party (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.