This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank Schofield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Seefooddiet (talk · contribs) 07:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 16:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll review this. At first glance it is well-written and adequately sourced, but I find myself wondering about the heavy use of the government source (the first citation). I will provide detailed comments in a few days. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All major comments addressed, some minor nits below can be handled at leisure

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Spotchecks below

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   There is heavy use of a government source, as I note, but I believe the specific information it is used for is okay.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks are below

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Spotchecks are below, all clear

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Licensing checks out to the best of my ability

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• When we have an article on the Severance Medical School that appropriately links to the ko.wiki article, I'm not sure we should be adding the korean text in-line.
  • Could you clarify for me: are you saying for now, the link is ok, but in future if there's an article for this school we should link to that? Currently there's no kowiki or enwiki article on this school. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean the one you've linked, Severance Hospital, which does have a ko.wiki article. I don't foresee a situation wherein the medical school would have a separate article - and if you expect that it would, we should include a redlink to it instead. A parenthetical korean term with no associated article does not aid the reader in my view.
  • Redlinked instead; the school is definitely notable, historic. Kept Korean text per MOS:HANGUL. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read that as suggesting korean text for korean terms, rather than translated ones - but this is a really minor point to begin with, and it does no harm. So let's leave it at that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The third paragraph under "Korea" is oddly placed. I don't have an issue with the content as such, as it's sourced and reflects modern assessment of the period as far as I'm aware. But it's shoehorned in, with no clear relevance to what comes before or after. I think it needs shortening, and probably needs integration with the first paragraph of the next section. Some material could be moved to a footnote, too. The second and third sentence could be removed altogether: linking to the article about the period is sufficient.
  • I greatly shortened it and moved it to the first paragraph. Is this ok? grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine for length, I would suggest using it as the opening of "March first movement" and adjusting the wording there to allow for it. But that's a suggestion only.
      • Respectful pushback on this; I think the third paragraph of the Korea section requires context about Korea's colonial state. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough.
• "Schofield relented to helping them" something is grammatically off here.
  • Changed to "relented and helped them". grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "Schofield also reportedly personally intervened" "reportedly" is woolly here - reported by whom? If it's reliable biographers, we should state it in Wikipedia's voice - if not, we can probably attribute this directly
  • Removed "reportedly"; this is a chronic issue I had around the time I wrote this article. I used that word too much. I don't do it anymore 😅 grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's still 8 uses of "reportedly" :) I wouldn't object to its use when the reporter in question is not entirely reliable - but if the reporter is the same as the source you are using, it's an odd construction. You probably want to switch to full in-text attribution (he was noted in his obituary to have...) or just use wikivoice, depending on context.
      • Removed the rest, think none were appropriate. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noting in passing that this has left "He gained the trust of Korean independence activists" a bit bald and context-free. Suggest "By doing so..." or "Over time..." or "His outspokenness [gained him]..." but this is minor.
• "were confronted in a meeting with Japanese politicians" unclear who is doing the confronting
  • reworded, hopefully clearer grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The source of the blockquote in "expulsion" isn't clear - when and how did he make that statement?
  • Moved ref inside blockquote. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "In a 2003 memorial lecture to Schofield" needs rephrasing, as it implies the lecture was delivered to Schofield
  • Done grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 2003, it was reported that the OVC hosted..." why are we qualifying this? Do we not know it as a matter of fact? Also: is this the same lecture alluded to above?
  • Fixed. Same bad habit around using "reportedly" above. I think likely part of the same series. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There are several references to post-independence "Korea", which should probably be "South Korea" or "Republic of Korea" unless it is Korea in the abstract
  • done grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The reference to Schofield's grandson feels like trivia - I would recommend omitting it.
  • Done grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless I'm missing something in the translation, the source about two other foreigners isn't actually telling you how many have buried there in total, and so it may warrant omission. Alternatively, you could find another source.
  • Reworded and moved it to a footnote; part of the reason I want to keep it around and not remove altogether is because I myself had the inaccurate impression that he was still the only one and only recently corrected this article. Some dated but still recent news articles state that he's the only one. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that reference 1 is to a ROK government website. This is okay in most instances, but some care needs to be taken with contentious information. Phrases like "which was notorious for mistreating its prisoners", "various villages and buildings destroyed by the Japanese", "submitted them for publication in the international press", and the entire paragraph in "Publicizing information about the protests" are using heavier editorial voice than I would recommend for material based on such a source.
  • I think I addressed most of these issues. However, the bit about "mistreating its prisoners" I moved to another section of the article that has more non-govt sources present. The entire paragraph on "publicizing information about the protests" has more sources than just the govt source; do you think I still need to qualify things, given those other sources? I'm also confused on how the first sentence is considered NPOV; if you're thinking of "The Massacre of Chai-Amm-ni" and "Report of the Su-chon Atrocities", those are the verbatim titles of the reports. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean "notorious for mistreating its prisoners"? That's not not-NPOV by definition, but it is a contentious claim, and should ideally rely on a source that doesn't have a vested interest in it, as the Korean government does. I see there's two other sources listed there, so I won't object. Or did you mean something else?
• this source should make it clear who the author is.
  • Done grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fn 1t is largely okay but I don't explicitly see "Rhee ran a repressive military dictatorship." I am relying on google translate here, so it may be missing something.
  • Tightened to wording of source grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Fn 1u checks out
• Fn 1v checks out
• Fn 1aa checks out
• Fn 1ab checks out
• Fn 3a and 3b check out
• Fb 3c says he graduated in 1910, and in 1911 received a Doctor of Veterinary Science degree. The article doesn't mention the former, and calls the latter a doctorate.
  • Added in bachelor info and chose to use the doctorate wording from the UVC source, think it probably knows better than the Korean sources. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Fn 9a checks out
• Fn 9b: I don't see where it says that the five Canadians were honored in that exhibition.
  • ? Isn't it implied in the source title and body? Five of them — Robert Grierson, Archibald Barker, Stanley Martin, Frank Schofield and Frederick McKenzie — are honored for their dedication to Korean independence. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue was that the text of the source says they are honored in the abstract, but didn't make a direct connection to the exhibition - but it's explicit in the image caption, which I missed. So this is okay.
• Fn 10a and 10b check out okay
• With respect to copyright, this is a pass overall, but there are some phrases highlighted in the first two results of the earwig's tool comparison [1] that really should be cleaned up (I am referring to things besides quotes and names).
  • I respectfully disagree with the need for this; looking closely at all the matches, there aren't really any significant wordings that are close to copyvios. Shared concepts are being named, but there's no other desirable way to name the concepts. There's maybe one instance ("textbooks") that leans a little close, but that's overlap of less than like 6 words. The high overlap score comes from the quotes. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's two phrases I would change: "appear in Korean museums and textbooks", and "due to problems with his eyesight". A couple of others are still mirroring the source language but I can't find a good way to rephrase.
      • Addressed the given example concerns; open to do more. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, thank you for doing the review 🙂. Just a note that I've read these comments and will work on them asap. Please feel free to add more at any time. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: Replied inline, think I got everything. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vanamonde93: More replies grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Some extremely minor replies notwithstanding, I'm happy to pass this now. Nice work. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]