Template:Did you know nominations/May 18th National Cemetery
- 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 Allen3 talk 22:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
May 18th National Cemetery[edit]
- ... that the May 18th National Cemetery (memorial gate pictured) commemorates victims of the Gwangju Uprising in Korea?
- Reviewed: Student assignment (ESL) for my Wikipedia course, I think the quality is good enough to be featured in our DYK column? I realize the article fails the "five days" window, but the student misunderstood my advice to start in the sandbox and started to work directly in the emainspace; by the time I caught it her project was too advanced to abandon. I hope we can WP:IAR the time limit and review this as an assignment finished now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Created by Tksgk262 (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 15:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC).
-
OK, we can make an exception on the timing, but the article is one long copyvio. It doesn't appear that the May 18th National Cemetery website is public domain, nor are the book refs. Sentences and sentence structure are copied directly from these sources:- Source: The Old May 18th Cemetery was the place where the bodies of those who died gloriously during the May 18th Democratic Uprising were buried, and has been called the “Mangweol-dong Cemetery.” In the midst of the Uprising, the family members and relatives, in a state of horror and rage, carried the bodies on a trolley and buried their loved ones here in Mangweol-dong, and the bodies of those who were sacrificed on May 27th when the Provincial Hall fell or unidentified bodies were carried by a garbage truck and buried here.Since then, when Mangweol-dong has received the global spotlight as the “holy ground for democracy,” the military troops had schemed to abolish the graveyard, such as by unearthing the graves, etc.
- Article: The Old May 18th Cemetery (구묘역) was the place where those who died during the May 18th Democratic Uprising were buried, and has been called the "Mangweol-dong Cemetery". In the midst of the Uprising, the family members and relatives carried the bodies on trolleys and buried the victims in Mangweol-dong. The bodies of those who died on May 27th when the Provincial Hall fell, and unidentified bodies, were carried by garbage trucks and buried here. Since Mangweol-dong received the global spotlight as the "holy ground for democracy", the military had planned to destroy the graveyard.
- Source: Projects to create a National Cemetery were initiated in 1994, and the new National Cemetery for the May 18th Democratic Uprising was completed in 1997. The bodies that were buried at the Mangweol-dong Cemetery were moved to new graves, leaving 17 years of disgrace behind, and finally were able to rest in peace. The Mangweol-dong Cemetery was restored and is preserved in its original form to portray the painful and dreadful situation of the past, and the Gwangju Metropolitan City designated and manages the Mangweol-dong Cemetery as a historical site.
- Article: Projects to create a National Cemetery were initiated in 1994, and the new National Cemetery for the May 18th Democratic Uprising was completed in 1997. The bodies that were buried at the Mangweol-dong Cemetery were moved to new graves. The Mangweol-dong Cemetery was restored and is preserved in its original form as a monument of the past. The Gwangju Metropolitan City designated and manages the Mangweol-dong Cemetery as a historical site.
- Source: Each May for years now, a large number of people gather to pay reverence at Mangwoldong Memorial Cemetery in Gwanju, and express the consciousness of their debt to "Gwangju in 1980."
- Article: Each May a large number of people gather to pay reverence at May 18th National Cemetery (Mangwoldong Momorial Cemetery), and express the consciousness of their debt to "Gwangju in 1980".
- Source: The two cemeteries came to represent two different aspects of the uprising: the new, designed to represent a commemoration of past sacrifices and the old marked by the symbolism of a continuing struggle. Interesting to note is the suggestion evident in the process of naming. Equating “new” with “official” and “old” with “unofficial” serve to influence popular conception of the significance of the different actors involved in the uprising, their place in history, their ideologies and their legacies.
- Article: The two cemeteries came to represent two different aspects of the Gwangju uprising: the new, designed to represent a commemoration of past victims, and the old, marked by the symbolism of the continuing struggle for democracy. Interesting to note is the suggestion evident in the process of naming. Equating "new" with "official" and "old" with "unofficial" serves to influence popular conception of the significance of the different actors involved in the uprising, their place in history, their ideologies, and their legacies.
- Source: Monumental Pillar: the structure of the monumental pillar is two symmetrical square pillars that are 40 meters in height, and is a modern interpretation of Korea’s tradition stone construction, dang-gan-ji-ju (flagpole). Oval-shaped Sculpture: The sculpture symbolizes resurrection. Ova in shape, it is installed inside of the grasped hand at the central part of the monument pillar.Sculpture: This bronze sculpture installed horizontally in two pieces at distances of 17.5m to the right and left of the monument, respectively, is titled “Grassroots’ Resistance of May”
- Article: Monumental Pillar: The structure of the monumental pillar is two symmetrical square pillars that are 40 metres (130 ft) high, and is a modern interpretation of Korea’s tradition stone construction, dang-gan-ji-ju (flagpole). Oval-shaped Sculpture: The sculpture symbolizes resurrection. Oval in shape, it is installed inside the grasped hand at the central part of the monument pillar. Bronze sculpture: This bronze sculpture, installed horizontally in two pieces at distances of 17.5 metres (57 ft) to the right and left of the monument, respectively, is titled "Grassroots Resistance of May"
- Other notes: The Timeline section is unnecessary; any salient information should be written in prose form. Footnote 8 is an unclear URL. Footnote 9 is a Wikipedia article. The article also needs a bit of copyediting for English grammar. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh. And I even spend an hour or so with the student helping them rewrite this once before; clearly I wasn't clear enough on the entire COPYPASTE thing. Well, if the student comes back here, hopefully we can explain it to her again. As the course is over... we will see what happens. Ping course ambassador, User:-revi - if you could leave the student a short explanation in Korean about COPYPASTE, I'd appreciate it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's great you've been taking the time to shepherd all these student efforts. EEng (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: this page should not stay as is with the copyios. Should I go ahead and blank the sections that are copied? (Not much will be left, though. Perhaps we should just put a copyvio notice on the whole page.) Yoninah (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: The student got back to me saying she will try to rewrite the content. Perhaps we can wait few days and see if it is sufficient? If it won't be, I'd suggest blanking most of the article, but I think some elements should be oopyvio-free (ex. the lead or the list of refs). PS. If anyone here is a Korean speaker, and could translate parts of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing to Korean, I'd appreciate it; my students English is often not good enough to grasp the nuances discussed there well enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- OK, as in you're going to translate the Close Paraphrasing thingamajig into Korean? EEng (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- Unsurprisingly, the students are not interested in doing any further work (the grades are up, after all). I've hopefully rewritten all instances of close paraphrasing, which hopefully will be enough to keep the article? (I guess for DYK purposes I am now not just the nom, but co-author as well...?) @Yoninah and EEng: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Yoninah: The student got back to me saying she will try to rewrite the content. Perhaps we can wait few days and see if it is sufficient? If it won't be, I'd suggest blanking most of the article, but I think some elements should be oopyvio-free (ex. the lead or the list of refs). PS. If anyone here is a Korean speaker, and could translate parts of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing to Korean, I'd appreciate it; my students English is often not good enough to grasp the nuances discussed there well enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: this page should not stay as is with the copyios. Should I go ahead and blank the sections that are copied? (Not much will be left, though. Perhaps we should just put a copyvio notice on the whole page.) Yoninah (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's great you've been taking the time to shepherd all these student efforts. EEng (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning this up, Piotrus. I removed more close paraphrasing and added some information from the sources. There are more monuments/memorials than the 2 listed, but this is a start article. I added an image to the hook for interest. IAR on the nomination date, per your request. So this is ... new enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing. Hook ref verified and cited inline. Image is PD. Now you just need to submit a QPQ and we'll be ready to go. Yoninah (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have left a review at Template:Did you know nominations/To Live for the Masses. With all your work here, I think you should be recognized as the article's co-author, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that some of the phrasing here is still too close to the sources. Compare for example "Each May, a large number of people gather to pay reverence here and express the consciousness of their debt to "Gwangju in 1980"" with "Each May for years now, a large number of people gather to pay reverence at Mangwoldong Memorial Cemetery in Gwangju, and express the consciousness of their debt to "Gwangju in 1980"". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Sentence rewritten. Is there anything else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Another example is "When he entered Yonsei University, he learned about the Gwangju Uprising and started to study about democracy, becoming a democratic movement activist." (Source: "When he entered Yonsei University, he learned about the May 18th Gwangju Democratic Uprising. And then he started to study about democracy and became a democratic movement activist"). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Copypaste removed. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Another example is "he was fatally wounded by a tear gas grenade, triggering further mobilization" vs "Lee Han Yeol was fatally wounded by a tear gas grenade during a demonstration, triggering further mobilization". At this point I would suggest that you go through the entire article and compare it to its sources to ensure that all problems are caught, rather than simply fixing examples one by one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Piotrus, it's been over a week, and this article has been rife with close paraphrasing and copy/paste. The nomination needs your attention in order to continue. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset and Nikkimaria: I rewrote this para. Is there anything else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Have you gone through the entire article, as I suggested above? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I don't think there's a single unchanged sentence remaining from the version student submitted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
On the basis of that assurance I checked the article again, but found issues with the first source I looked at: "The victims of the Uprising had been buried in dishonor (...) for 17 years" vs "The victims of the May 18 Democratic Uprising in 1980 had been buried in dishonour for 17 years". In light of this I think it's time to close. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is nothing but nitpicking. A few sentences are allowed to have a similar structure, otherwise every sentence one would write would be a copyvio of something, at this day and age. Nobody ever is going to sue Wikipedia for half a sentence (or even two or three). Even we wouldn't tag this article with any warning template for a single sentence that's close to the source. I appreciate your discoveries of serious copyvio and copypaste issues, and those have been addressed here. What remains is inconsequential. I think it's time to promote this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Our standard is not whether someone is going to sue us - this happens rarely for even the most egregious problems - but whether the article is properly paraphrased. I would hope not to be finding further examples so long after the issue was first raised, particularly given that you said there wasn't "a single unchanged sentence remaining". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I was wrong, there was one that we didn't change. Anything else? I sincerely think we didn't miss much. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Our standard is not whether someone is going to sue us - this happens rarely for even the most egregious problems - but whether the article is properly paraphrased. I would hope not to be finding further examples so long after the issue was first raised, particularly given that you said there wasn't "a single unchanged sentence remaining". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is nothing but nitpicking. A few sentences are allowed to have a similar structure, otherwise every sentence one would write would be a copyvio of something, at this day and age. Nobody ever is going to sue Wikipedia for half a sentence (or even two or three). Even we wouldn't tag this article with any warning template for a single sentence that's close to the source. I appreciate your discoveries of serious copyvio and copypaste issues, and those have been addressed here. What remains is inconsequential. I think it's time to promote this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I don't think there's a single unchanged sentence remaining from the version student submitted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Have you gone through the entire article, as I suggested above? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset and Nikkimaria: I rewrote this para. Is there anything else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Piotrus, it's been over a week, and this article has been rife with close paraphrasing and copy/paste. The nomination needs your attention in order to continue. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Another example is "he was fatally wounded by a tear gas grenade, triggering further mobilization" vs "Lee Han Yeol was fatally wounded by a tear gas grenade during a demonstration, triggering further mobilization". At this point I would suggest that you go through the entire article and compare it to its sources to ensure that all problems are caught, rather than simply fixing examples one by one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Sentence rewritten. Is there anything else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Now that all the changes have been made, let's get a reviewer in here to check the revised article and make sure everything's okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Making an exception for a new editor on newness but long enough (3.6k chars). Although I would've preferred more indepth secondary sources, it's adequately cited. I've made a minor copyedit run, which should resolve those copyright and neutrality issues. Hook is stated and sourced. Image is public domain and QPQ done. Fuebaey (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)