Template:Did you know nominations/Korean National Youth Association

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Korean National Youth Association

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Korean National Youth Association was an anti-communist right-wing group founded in 1946 under the catchphrase "National Branch, National Geography"? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • ALT1:... that the Korean National Youth Association set up a training center in 1946 with the support of the U.S. government? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created by Sunghokyoung (talk) and 95leegy (talk). Nominated by 166.104.240.105 (talk) at 07:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC).

• The article had not been expanded in the week leading up to the nomination, nor has it been since. It has multiple unresolved issues tag, that no one seems to be working actively on resolving. The IP nom might have been trolling. As such, I have elected not to notify at their talk page. Recommend speedy close as a hopeless case. My second review. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Usedtobecool, the article was worked on in a user's sandbox, and according to its history, was moved to article mainspace on May 24, three days before it was nominated. As such, it is eligible for DYK, since articles are considered to be new when moved to mainspace, regardless of how long they were worked on in Draft or User space; it was nominated three days later, well within the seven-day limit. The article clearly has issues, but since it does have basic newness and size eligibility, we should notify nominator and creators of the review and issues found, which do include all those unresolved issues tags. If no work is begun to resolve such issues in the next week or two after notification, that's soon enough to begin action to close the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wow! Yeah, completely missed that part about reviewing. Thanks! I'll write a review with more specific issues and leave messages on the talk pages of creators as well as the IP nom. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset it seems the nom was created by one of the creators of the article and then the IP made an edit changing details of the nomination, including putting themself as the nominator in place of the original nom. So, I only notified the creators, and the original nom, for now. Please advise; this is one of the peculiar things I've come across. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Correction: The article actually does qualify as new enough and long enough, as a lengthy article moved to mainspace within a week before nomination. However, it has multiple issues that require a significant amount of work fixing. The article could benefit from attention by an editor with fluency in Korean. The article requires reorganising as the tag suggests, and this needs to be done as part of the DYK approval process. In addition, the article lacks consistency in grammar. It also requires significant copyediting even though the tag was recently removed, since it's hard to understand exactly what happened in the history of the subject. For example, some sources as well as some parts of the article suggest the group was disbanded in 1949 while a significant part of the article continues to tell the organisation's history past 1949, even up to 1954. There are neutrality issues that can be resolved relatively easily once other issues are addressed. At least one source seems to be dead. Two other sources don't seem to be on the subject at all. In particular, I strongly doubt that a list of abstracts from an ophthalmology journal would verify facts about Korean history. A good place to start is to put the history in chronological order, making it clear exactly what had happened at each landmark date with regard to the subject rather than broadly to Korea. This chronology should be written, also making clear exactly who believed in which ideology; the words liberal, liberty, right-wing, left-wing, anti-communist and nationalist should be used with care. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Considering that none of the credited co-creators have been active within the past month and the issues remain unaddressed, the nomination is now marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)