Talk:G-Dragon/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

As previously done with Big Bang, I'm reassessing this because, like the article for Big Bang, this article has neutrality issues.

The legacy section stands out the most, with a bunch of random quotations from various people him important without any explanation of why their opinion is notable or why certain quotes are even listed at all. In addition, very little of it discusses his actual legacy and is three paragraphs of unrelated information.

• "His involvement has shaped how new idol groups interact with their music" this is used as an introduction to an actual cited fact, but most of this is not in the listed sources. (At least, from what I could find.)

• "His music has gained appreciation from critics" This should probably be more specific or be less complimentary (i.e. "his music has received a generally positive critical reception".) Also, this paragraph discusses specific critical praise for specific albums, which belongs in the Artistry section (or on their respective pages).

• "That same year, The Guardian ranked G-Dragon No. 11 on their list of "30 Best Boyband Members," becoming only one of two Korean artists to be listed, with BTS's Jimin coming at No. 17." Is this worth putting here? It's on Jimin's page as well, but it feels like fluff to me, though for this I could understand leaving it in.

• "His artistry, multi-hyphenate career, popularity and level of influence" These statements don't show up in the sources the way it's being used here from what I could find.

• "Despite his success as a solo artist and leader of Big Bang, G-Dragon has admitted that he didn't realize how famous he was until he went on Big Bang's first world tour." I would consider this to be fancruft.

• The lengthy blockquote in the public image section reads as pure promotion, as it adds little to the prose to help expand what it discusses.

The actual, cited information about his popularity belongs more under his public image section than in an article about his legacy. His legacy would discuss what measurable impact he's done for the K-Pop industry, like the list of artists citing him directly as an influence. This section, and the whole article even, fails to mention his measurable impact in spreading the hallyu wave as well, which is a rather vital piece of his career that is totally vacant.

Other stuff:

• The article contains a lot of weasel words. From the lead: "not only", "critically acclaimed" (the album being labeled as such as two mentioned reviews) and other non-neutral phrases (such as "the collection highlights G-Dragon's signature crest" from the other ventures section.

• "However, on June 25, 2018, South Korean media outlet, Dispatch, reported that the artist was receiving special treatment in Yangzhou Armed Forces Hospital during his stay. He was said to be resting in a hospital room dedicated to Colonels although he is only a Private First Class. Later on, his music label, YG Entertainment, as well as the Ministry of Defense released statements claiming that the allegations were false and that he was not receiving any special treatments. In the midst of the rumors, a petition has been set up in the government's website to shut down Dispatch due to the belief that the company was releasing fabricated articles in attempts to entertain people without any regards to the validity of the news as well as how the news would affect the person or people involved." This section feels rather biased in G-Dragon's favor and fails to mention that there was genuine public backlash and only mentions the petition. Additionally, it feels like an example of MOS:ALLEGED.

• No images used have alt text.

• The article uses a unreliable sources per WP:KO/RS: such as Soompi and Korea Portal, and fanblogs like Kpop Behind.

This article has changed significantly since it's GA revision eight years ago. I do think it's salvageable and has a lot of good information in it, but the constant implications of praise in the prose and much arguably notable praise makes be believe it no longer holds GA status. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 16:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Been a week without discussion or objection, so I'm going to demote this. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)