|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Korea article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|Korea was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
Three Kingdoms Section
Needs editing both for grammar and citation. I am not familiar with Korean history and don't really feel I could properly edit it more than I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgallagher8 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
"South Korea ranks second on math and literature and first in problem solving. Although South Korean students often rank high on international comparative assessments, the education system is criticised for emphasising too much upon passive learning and memorization. The South Korean education system is rather notably strict and structured as compared to its counterparts in most Western societies. Also, the prevalence of non-school for-profit private institutes such as academies or cram schools (Hagwon [학원]), which too emphasise passive memorisation, as opposed to conceptual understanding, in students are criticised as a major social problem. After students enter university, however, the situation is markedly reversed In Korea, university is hard to enter, and graduation is comparatively easier than entry."
Who is criticising the education system for empasising too much passive learning? This is vague and biased. Do you mean Westerners? Or...? who? where? ..."are criticised as a major social problem." Again, who is criticising anything? Also, what does memorisation have to do with major social problems? Where is the evidence that they ONLY or MAINLY memorise? Do they not work out problems using the memorised (btw ALL countries have children memorise information, it is a basic part of learning! Such as 1+1=2) information? This is just so simplistic and childlike.
Infobox Geopolitical organization
- Agreed, I saw that and thought it was off. I just fixed it to make sense and to show that Seoul is largest overall as well as in the South. Not sure what you mean re "geopolitical", that's just the name of the template. —Nizolan (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Possibly a deceased equine
IP recently made a change to mentioning of "east sea". Hidden text points to Sea of Jap Naming Con which seems to indicate it should properly be Sea of Japan and East Sea or East Sea of Korea should be used once parenthetically at the first mention. That is, unless I'm missing something. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I changed it back, per the guideline/consensus. Cf. also the notices at the top of Talk:Sea of Japan. —Nizolan (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
We probably should remove the last sentence of the music section. There is no source for why these particular bands are included and others aren't, and it's acting as an invitation for every IP and their mother to add in their particular favorites. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Eh. Done. Don't think we really need many people to establish consensus on this. Pretty straight forward. Just didn't want to be alone on it. Also added a cn to what's left of the section. The cn may be excessive. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Level of protection
I have a question for the regular watchers of this page. I recently added pending change protection to this article because of what I interpreted as recurring but not-terribly-frequent vandalism. But I see that in the last few days it has been necessary to revert bad edits multiple times a day. That level of vandalism usually calls for semi-protection, because it can be awfully hard for the regular watchers to keep up with reverting the problem edits when they are occurring that often. I would like some feedback from those of you who monitor this article: Has the vandalism increased recently? And is there sometimes constructive editing from IPs, or does it pretty much all need to be reverted? Thanks for your input. Pinging @Timothyjosephwood and Nizolan: --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really see (m)any constructive IP edits coming down the pipe. Not much of an argument I can see against semi. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no objection either way really. It does seem like the article is a vandalism/nationalist POV-pushing magnet and I agree constructive edits by IPs seem few and far between of late. —Nizolan (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991013000846/http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/CMTS/MonoPaper3-13.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/CMTS/MonoPaper3-13.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050509131122/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030623/23gulag.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030623/23gulag.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425064509/http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1207 to http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1207
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
Archived sources still need to be checked