Talk:Seokjojeon

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 talk 03:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exterior of Seokjojeon
Exterior of Seokjojeon
  • ... that the building Seokjojeon was meant to symbolize the Korean Empire's authority, but it was completed just months before Japan annexed Korea? Source: [1] "제국의 위세를 떨치려는 의도에서 확장과 중건을 거듭했지만... 대한제국 광무 원년(1897년)에 설계가 시작되었고 1910년 8월 경술국치 3개월여 뒤 완공되었다." -> "[The palace] was expanded with the intent of raising the authority of the [Korean] Empire... Work on [Seokjojeon] began in 1897 and it was completed three months before the August 1910 signing of the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910."
Created by Seefooddiet (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

seefooddiet (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Citations 1–2, 8–10, 21, and 28–31 randomly spot-checked for verification. No issues arose. Yue🌙 07:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: Seefooddiet (talk · contribs) 20:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kimikel (talk · contribs) 19:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be conducting this review as part of the May 2025 GA review drive. I will leave my comments within a few days. Kimikel (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapesurgeon: I have left my initial comments below. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding my suggestions. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for the review! I left in-line responses to each point. Also note that I'm currently moving house so sometimes may have delayed responses. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapesurgeon: Thank you for the quick response. I just noticed one more thing before I finish the review: correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that Seokjojeon being "Korea's first Western-style neoclassical château" isn't in the body of the article and isn't sourced. Unless I'm mistaken and it's already there, this fact can be inserted somewhere in the description section and sourced. That should be all. Kimikel (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, good catch. I'm fairly certain that claim was in one of my sources, but it'd be tough to find which one it was in. I just adjusted it to align with body. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, everything looks good. Thanks for the quick responses and the quality work on this one. I'm going to pass it now; congratulations! Kimikel (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

Lead

  • per MOS:BOLDLEAD, I think Seokjojeon is the only significant name for this building, so the rest of the names should not be bolded.
    • Unbolded Seokjojeon Art Museum, but I think the other two are also significant names. The West Wing should be bolded because it's a prominent part of this article I think; makes clear that this article encompasses both buildings and not them separately. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • that is located inside > located inside

Description

History

Verifiable

Spot check

  1. 25: Describes Brown as an accountant; he should be described as such in the article
  2. 44: Verified
  3. 35-2: Verified
  4. 29: Verified
  5. 47: I don't see any mention of a lottery system

Broad

  • No issues

Neutral

  • No issues

Stability

  • No issues

Illustrated

  • All properly tagged and beneficial to article
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.