# Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 82

Where's the references? 24.86.71.241 (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference to wikisource at the bottom where you can find the full text of the resolution. - Schrandit (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 82/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Looks good to this ESL.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Just agree on "UN commission on Korea" vs "UN Commission on Korea". Is it notable enough to be linked?
I'll link it. I've seen it mentioned so much I have to imagine it deserves its own article. —Ed!(talk) 15:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
There are some sentences which miss references, including potentially controversial ones, such as the one with "the Soviet Union (USSR) occupied the country". Several other key claims in "Outbreak of war" and "Aftermath" are also uncited. Please ensure that ALL sentences have clear references, even if they will be repeated (on Wikipedia, sentences can be moved around and inserted anywhere, so what is fine at a given moment may no longer be later).
From what I understand of WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:OVERCITE, refs are only necessary on material that is likely to be challenged. I've been chided for overciting articles at A-class and FA, so I generally avoid citing every other sentence and using the same cite over and over (generally I've seen little support for citing at the end of every sentence, the same ref, over and over.)
Well, I apologize for different standards. I do not believe anything can be overcited, my (recent) GAs/FAs have all sentences cited and it is something I demand from articles I review. I will only say that if anybody criticized you for it, ping me and I'll join you and defend the citations in future discussions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll do this, but frankly I'm tired of doing and un-doing edits to deal with conflicting reviewers. I'm holding you to that, and pinging you every time I get told not to do this. —Ed!(talk) 14:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. —Ed!(talk) 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be also nice, but NOT REQUIRED for GA if links to specific pages on Google Books were provided.
I've also been wondering about this. Is there a policy? I ask because I have linked a lot of PD books to government sites where they are available electronically, but I don't know what the word is on where to "link" offline sources. —Ed!(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Google Books are not required, but I find them very helpful when present (mind you, the links are often not accessible outside US, sadly). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, the last para should not reify the magazine; state the author, and and afterwards it should not be "magazine contended" but "John X contended" and on.
Done. —Ed!(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Pending per above.
C. No original research: 
Check.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Almost. I was thinking what could be added, and I'd like to see a brief explanation on who was the Korean representative to UN, and for the less informed readers, why (as I assume) NK had no representative.
Done. —Ed!(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
What about the representative part? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've clarified that Chang Myon was the ROK diplomat. Is this what you are looking for? —Ed!(talk) 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, perfect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
B. Focused: 
Check.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Most likely, but I'd like to see a GPage links/quotation for "the United States (US) occupied the country". And more than one source; is it common to use the term "occupation" in this context?
Per above, I'd contend that re-citing Apple pg. 2 three sentences in a row is redundant. —Ed!(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid I'll have to insist on it. Per above :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Check.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Check.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Check. Could perhaps try to squeeze one more image at the bottom?
Considered that, but my choice was Trygve Lie and his photo isn't great. Is there one you think would look suitable? —Ed!(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If you cannot find a nything better, it is not necessary; this was more of an optional suggestion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
On hold. I want to commend the author on a very good use of blue (and red links). I've reviewed several noms recently and this is the first where I don't have to complain about that :)
Thank you! I appreciate it. —Ed!(talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
All looks good, just waiting for the answer to my question at 1B. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
All's good, passing! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_293
Recalling its declaration of 12 December 1948 that there has been established a lawful government (the Government of the Republic of Korea) having effective control and jurisdiction over that part of Korea where the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea was able to observe and consult and in which the great majority of the people of Korea reside; that this Government is based on elections which were a valid expression of the free will of the electorate of that part of Korea and which were observed by the Temporary Commission; and that this is the only such Government in Korea,
The Government of the Republic of Korea was the only government that satisfied all of these conditions. There may have been a government in the northern part of Korea but the Temporary Commission had not been able to observe those elections (?). Legal does not seem to be the right word here. For a long time the current government of China was not the one that the UN considered to be "China"; but now it does, and it didn't go from being "illegal" to being "legal" because it was never "illegal", it's just that the control of China was disputed (and perhaps still is, but not at the UN). I have not edited the article myself partly because too lazy to check for people reverting it and talk page gives the issue visibility, but as currently written, the article gives more "moral" opposition to the government in the north part of Korea than is fair. Jeju Uprising, apparent banning of Communist party in southern part of Korea by US military forces. (Resolution 112 called upon "all Members of the United Nations to refrain from interfering in the affairs of the Korean people during the interim period preparatory to the establishment of Korean independence".) 2601:600:8500:B2D9:8D9F:2DE3:8AB4:356C (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)