This review is transcluded from Talk:Kim Chwajin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 19:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 14:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll take this review — I'll aim to add my comments in the next day or so. MCE89 (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: All comments now added below! Just ping me when you're done responding. MCE89 (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89: Ok, I think I've addressed everything. Let me know if there's any more I can do! --Grnrchst (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Just a couple of replies below - my one remaining query is the "national hero" statement, but everything else looks good. MCE89 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Images: Y Images are all PD and are appropriately tagged, captioned, and placed
• Copyright: Y No issues apparent on Earwig. Will do further checks for close paraphrasing as part of my spotchecks
• Stability and authorship: Y No recent edit warring, and the nominator has sufficient authorship

• has been compared to the Ukrainian anarchist Nestor Makhno - It might be worth adding a few words briefly explaining who Makhno is / why the two have been compared to one another
  • This is already covered by the following sentence. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• to the more than 50 freed people - The source seems to say that he freed more than 50 families
  • Corrected. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Following the Japanese annexation of Korea and the outbreak of the March First Movement in 1919 - I'd suggest adding "in 1910" after the first part, as this currently reads as though both events took place in 1919
  • Added. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you double check the page numbers on ref 20? They don't seem to match the linked document, and the mention of Kim in the source doesn't seem to quite verify the article's claim
  • From page 249: "Following the emergence of socialist ideology in the 1920s the followers of the Taejonggyo merged Na Chŏl’s theory of national construction with such concepts as republicanism and anarchism.64" This then references footnote 64 on page 256: "Kim Jwa‐jin and Shin Chae‐ho are the main examples." I think this verifies what I wrote down, but I'm happy to take suggestions for tweaking it. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope you’re right, that’s my bad - I didn’t realise that the source uses both the romanisations “Kim, Jwa-jin” and “Kim, Chwa-jin”, so I didn’t spot the footnote on p.256 (which I had also misread as p.256-264) MCE89 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Kim himself thought that they could ignore the Stalinists - It's not entirely clear which group "Stalinists" is referring to here - is this referring to the Communist Party of Korea mentioned in the previous sentence?
  • Removed sentence, per comment on MacSimoin. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there anything more that can be said about the motive for Kim's assassination, or about the tensions between the KPAM and the Communist Party of Korea?
  • Attempted to clarify that they sought hegemony over Manchuria. As far as I'm aware, there's no further information beyond this on motive for assassinating Kim specifically. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure your sources quite support the claim that Kim is considered a national hero in modern-day South Korea. Ramnath says that he ...was a hero of the Korean independence movement and the utopian Shinmin Autonomous Region, while Jang-Whan says he ...is largely remembered as a Korean patriot, particularly for his achievements as general and commander of the Korean Independent Army in Manchuria and The next year he became a national hero when his army wiped out an entire division of the Japanese Imperial Army at Chungsan-ri in Manchuria
  • I thought this was a reasonable extrapolation to make, considering O. H. Jang-Whan is a South Korean researched and considering Kim is venerated in the Independence Hall of Korea and his birthplace is protected as a national monument (both of which are in South Korea); there's also no evidence he is part of North Korean national mythology, so it begs the question of where else he would be considered a "national hero" other than in South Korea? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I wasn't super clear - my concern wasn't about the location, but about the claim that he is still considered a national hero in the modern day. Jang-Whan seems to me to say he became viewed a national hero during the occupation due to his victory in the battle (The next year he became a national hero), but I don't think Jang-Whan explicitly says that he maintains that status as a national hero today. How would you feel about tweaking this sentence to something more like "Kim’s victories with the Korean independence movement made him a national hero, and he is remembered today as a patriot"? MCE89 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MCE89: Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources generally look good. Just a couple of queries on source reliability:
  • Song 2013 (ref 18) seems to be a fictionalised historical romance novel — I think this could safely just be removed given the claim is supported by several other sources
    • Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the talk by MacSimoin that you cite a reliable source?
    • Hrm, not so sure on second thought. It's published in pamphlet form and doesn't cite its sources. It's mostly cited in places already verified by other sources and the only thing cited solely to it isn't particularly vital to the article, so I've removed it just to be safe. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we know whether the site hosting the Hwang book is authorised by the copyright holder? It seems like a potential WP:COPYLINK issue if not
  • Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• No concerns regarding NPOV, breadth or focus based on my read through and a brief search for unused sources
• I did my spotchecking as I went, and everything checked out aside from the issues noted above in the prose review. Specifically I checked refs 3, 9, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 32, 43, 48, and 53.