Why did somebody archive the ongoing GA review? (Wikimachine 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think it was done on purpose. I think it was just because of the default setting applied to a bot to automatically archive threads that haven't had any activity in a wekk or something like that. I think MizaBot or something like that is what's setup to do it, mainly because of the huge discussion about the Chinese casualty figures. wbfergus ^Talk 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-copied this back over from the archives. Does anybody object to changing the archive parameter from 7 days to 30 days? wbfergus ^Talk 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

• Fail - ok, maybe I'm too lazy for my own approach on an article like this - usually I correct all the grammar & concept mistakes myself & for the ones that I can't figure out I ask the main editors of this article to fix. This article has too many problems.
  • Bad grammar & wording- the reason for this is that this article attracts many anon users who can't speak & write English very well... This often leads to many big ambiguities - i.e. the US began using the F-86 Sabre... they could defeat Migs... So, was F-86 Sabre introduced before or during the war? Was F-86 Sabre that uber amazing? I don't think that's the case, but obviously the bad grammar & wording make such misunderstanding inevitable.

I started working on this today, but the "Post-WWII division of Korea" section really needs a lot of work, as I'm sure other sections do as well. A 'home' also needs to be found for the last sentence in the "Japanese occupation" section. Anybody willing to help out? wbfergus ^Talk 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • No cites- for an article as big as this? You need more cites, or these all sound like original research.
  • Weasel wording/POV - this is very minor, I think, but you can avoid this if you heavily cite your articles - then it becomes more focused on the facts rather than emphasis.
  • No improvements - the guy who submitted this article for GA review stopped working on it... And then the other guys aren't developing this article either... And there's obviously a dispute that's going on...

(Wikimachine 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Reference style or actually, lack thereof. For a "GA' rating or above, it seems that all of the occurences of references should be in the same general style, instead of the mess they currently are in. While there is no real "standard" or policy on reference styles (that I know of), it does seem that many of the problems could be avoided by the usage of some of the common templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Citations of generic sources. This would at least make all of the references appear to be consistent in layout. Template usage isn't required, as the same layout can be done manually as well, but I think the templates would just be easier. For my part, I will also begin trying to standardize these, though it may take a week or so, depending on my job and other time issues. wbfergus ^Talk 10:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough refs? I see more than enough. Good friend100 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, there are a bunch of refs, but at the same time, there are many statements in the article as well that need to be cited to a source, as the Cumings discussions have shown. For an article this long, there should be a lot more refs in the text, even if they are multiples of existing refs. This way, it's easier to verify which source the various points being made came from. I don't know if any existing text came from any of the external links, but if so, those should be cited and linked accordingly to the appropriate passages. wbfergus ^Talk 10:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have just finished going through the entire article and have satndardized all of the existing refs at this time by using the appropriate template. Hopefully when new refs are added, they will also use a template. For those wishing to do so, example citation templates can be seen at (and copied from) here. wbfergus ^Talk 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should source and rewrite the "Air warfare" section. Its ambiguous and when I read it, its not very good. Good friend100 22:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I was going through standardizing the references, I noticed that about several sections as well. I also noticed that several of the references had plenty of additional information that could be used to cite many additional statements throughout the article as well. That's a major undertaking though, and would require several different editors of a period of time, weeks or more at the very least. I'm willing to participate on a very limited basis, maybe a few hours per week going through one reference and see if there are any statements in this article can be attributed to either a source or an additional source. If anybody else wants to do this as well, then I'd suggest being semi-organized so people don't overlap by working with the same source. Ideas, comments or suggestions? wbfergus ^Talk 13:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that we need to work on references. We don't have much, so I'll try and help. Good friend100 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll primarily be limited to what is available through the web, so I will start with Appelman's book, South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu. It already is used to reference I think 5 different statements, but that's really no big deal. I think once there's more references cited inline, it will more easily highlight any additional sections or paragraphs that need more research into finding the applicable source material for the statements. Everything doesn't need to be cited, but presently there's a whole lot of 'stuff' that it's difficult or impossible to tell where the statement came from and whether or not it could be challenged as OR. wbfergus ^Talk 10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can interviews work? My cousin interviewed my grandfather (who was in the Korean War) and then uploaded the information onto her project (or school) website. The information is IMO very valuable since its directly from a veteran. But I don't know if its allowed to be used. Good friend100 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wouldn't be considered reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though in some cases interviews can be used. I don't remember the specifics, so you'll probably want to look around on WP:RS or possibly WP:V. I think the big stumbling block would be by Wikipedia standards, is your cousin a reliable source, though maybe one could argue as well using WP:V that if the interview is widely accessible via the web, and the school's web site doesn't allow anything, but the work that is there undergoes some sort of review process for accuracy, then it may meet the standard of "verifiability, not truth". And then again, that interview itself would also have to meet a different set of standards WP:NOR since it would be considered a 'primary source', so how it could be used is more stringent. It could not provide any analysis or conclusions that aren't already in print. It would pretty much be limited to only providing raw data. It's a rather complicated quagmire to meet all of conditions, and while the information may be very good and accurate, there are the additional

requirements of reliability and verifibility. wbfergus ^Talk 10:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)(minor edit wbfergus ^Talk 10:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

well my cousin interviewed my grandfather, so its about whether he is accurate or not. An interview from a veteran is a primary source and I don't think theres anything wrong with using his interview unless he made everything up. But if Wikipedia's policies prevent it from being used well then I guess its ok. Good friend100 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think for many of us, our grandparents and parents are great sources of information on how things were in the past. My own grandparents have a lot of stories to tell about trying to survive in China during the civil war period and through Japanese aggression. But like everything else, a usable source on WP needs to pass WP:RS. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with individuals cause reliability problems. People see things from their own perspectives and are often biased. Plus I don't think it would be proper to try to use interviews from members of their own family. John Smith's 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]