Talk:North Korean leader Kim Jong Un oversees hypersonic missile test

Review of revision 4656371 [Not ready]

Revision 4656371 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Party meeting date not mentioned. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Small style issues, see below. Comments by reviewer: The article is a very cursory glance at the issue. It does not seek to put Thursday's test into context. I would encourage you to read over the BBC article, which does a good job at summarising the latest as well as informing readers of its significance. Additionally, small style issues like the repeated use of "indicated" and strong passive tone "with...saying" instead of "Professor...said" or "with...urging" instead of two sentences: "The United States and South Korea condemned... The US is urging Pyongyang to...", etc can and should be resolved. I welcome you to read past published articles for an example of both items done well. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4656371 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Party meeting date not mentioned. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Small style issues, see below. Comments by reviewer: The article is a very cursory glance at the issue. It does not seek to put Thursday's test into context. I would encourage you to read over the BBC article, which does a good job at summarising the latest as well as informing readers of its significance. Additionally, small style issues like the repeated use of "indicated" and strong passive tone "with...saying" instead of "Professor...said" or "with...urging" instead of two sentences: "The United States and South Korea condemned... The US is urging Pyongyang to...", etc can and should be resolved. I welcome you to read past published articles for an example of both items done well. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@JJLiu112: Please take a look. Recent launches as well as September 2021's hypersonic launch were summarized and briefly contextualized. Henrymyman (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Second revision

@Henrymyman: It seems that a source is missing: a Rodong Sinmun article is referenced twice, and the article text references the Yonhap News Agency, but there seems to be no mention of them among the sources. Could you check upon that? - Xbspiro (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xbspiro: I added the Yonhap source. For the Rodong Sinmun article, all articles seem to be present. Henrymyman (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Henrymyman: Thank you for the source. ON another note, when the {{under review}} template is on an article, please use the talkpage to propose changes to avoid edit conflicts, and do not edit the article itself. - Xbspiro (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xbspiro: Noted. Henrymyman (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Henrymyman: Would you mind going through the steps which we have taken, and give your opinion? In this view, you may follow up on the changes as they have happened, gradually, by clicking "Newer edit" on each consecutive page. - Xbspiro (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xbspiro: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand; what I understand is that you would like to know my opinion on changes that were made during the review process? I'm not sure if that understanding is correct. Henrymyman (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Henrymyman: You have understood me. - Xbspiro (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xbspiro:

1. A great deal of shortening was done on the article, which is necessary in the journalistic field. I do not have any issue with these sorts of 'mechanical' edits. It is hard for me to write in this style as I use the complete opposite in matter of styles in redaction jobs I hold.

2. At some point several sources were removed (by who I don't know and don't care), which placed certain quotes and attribution in a state of unverifiability. The Leif-Eric Easley quote was from an Al Jazeera article I had sourced at the start of this article's creation. The situation is the same regarding the Yonhap attribution.

3. I didn't specify in which sea the missile sunk as no article specified. From my experience it is always their East Sea (Sea of Japan) as it is larger and has less dense maritime traffic, and this would explain Japan's detection of the missile.

4. I chose to use the North's flight length as oftenmost it takes a long time for South Korea or foreign authorities to release such details. It is true not to believe the North at 100% with these sorts of things, but saying that state media released those numbers informs the reader that these numbers may be inflated to show off or raise stakes for future talks.

Henrymyman (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

From the deleted comments page

South Korea issued a statement that claimed that North Koreas was years away from the technology they say they have. Figured that might be worthy enough to add in, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.38.238.133 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 January 2022‎

Review of revision 4656559 [Not ready]

Revision 4656559 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Third paragraph is structured strangely and could do with a rewrite. Attribute Easley quote "in comments emailed to Al Jazeera". I can certainly perform minor c/e, but full restructuring must be left to the contributor. Comments by reviewer: I'm unsure when you used the plenary meeting report source. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4656559 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Third paragraph is structured strangely and could do with a rewrite. Attribute Easley quote "in comments emailed to Al Jazeera". I can certainly perform minor c/e, but full restructuring must be left to the contributor. Comments by reviewer: I'm unsure when you used the plenary meeting report source. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@JJLiu112: Please have a look. The third paragraph was re-written, the quote was attributed and the unnecessary source was removed. Henrymyman (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4656583 [Passed]

Revision 4656583 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Work shows great signs of improvement. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4656583 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Work shows great signs of improvement. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.