Wikipedia:Peer review/Ban Ki-moon/archive1

Ban Ki-moon[edit]

I've been steadily improving this article about Ban Ki-moon, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations. As one of the most important diplomats in the world, I would like to get this up to Featured Article status. I would like guidance on where the article needs improvement (and bear in mind, his early and personal life and career before becoming secretary general are not 1/50th as well documented as, say, a U.S. president) and particularly how best to deal with the section on his current term as Secretary-General. Would small subsections of the biggest issues during his term, much like recent Featured Article Ronald Reagan be the best way to approach?

Thanks, --JayHenry 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine article, already A class in my opinion. I think the "early life" section is sufficient, but his early career could use some further information on what he was doing in each particular place where he worked. (I understand that such information is harder to find than current news.) I would recommend separating the criticism into its own == heading and identifying the particular issues. That will help to organize the large number of issues raised in that section, which is likely to grow during the next few years. Shalom ^Hello 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, didn't expect a review so quickly, thanks Shalom! I was going to make some WP:LEDE fixes tonight too. Thanks for removing that vandalism about Taiwan, it was added earlier today and somehow I missed it. I think I can still flesh more out of his pre-UN career. I personally was thinking criticisms should be integrated, I don't like "see #Criticisms" in articles, but I think that'd be necessary when we're dealing elsewhere in the article with actions that are also criticized, right? I'm genuinely asking for thoughts, as I'm quite unsure. --JayHenry 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, very thorough. I feel weird offering commentary, since I'm such a noob. But I guess that's the risk of asking for a peer review. =) Some notes, in the order they appear in the article:

The second lead ¶ both starts and ends with a reference to him being UNSG. Maybe just start with "Ban had been a career diplomat…"?
"…in 1944, when Korea was controlled by Japan." Maybe "while" is more appropriate here?
"Ban was raised in Chungju, a nearby town where his family moved when he was 3." How about: "When he was three, his family moved to the nearby town of Chungju, where he was raised."?
"As a child, Ban's father had a warehouse business…" Dangling participle = reader is inclined to think Ban's father had the business when he (the father) was a child.
Good tidbut about the first Americans he ever met.
"Ban's mother is reportedly a Buddhist." I'd just say "His mother…" (It's clear who the "his" refers to.)
This may be splitting hairs, but the second ¶ in "Diplomatic career" uses a lot of generalized time reference. A year or two before the date of SK UN membership would be helpful, I think.
Some of the years are wikilinked; others are not. Seems like consistency one way or another would be optimal.
"Ban lacked work for the only time in his life…" To avoid repetition of the word "work" in this sentence, maybe start with "Ban was unemployed for the first and only time in his life…"
"In 2004, Ban replaced…" This ¶ slips into and out of the simple past. Maybe instead of "has been involved" you could combine it with the previous sentence and change to: "…, after years of involvement with issues relating to…" Chronological order for that ¶ might be most effective.
I'd merge "Personality" into the "Personal" subhead of "Early life".
Maybe explain why Brazil awarded the Grand Cross?
I'd make "Awards" all one ¶. Seems odd to have the single-sentence ¶ at the end there.
Just for the record, how about: "…Ban made ministerial visits to each of the X countries with a seat on the security council."?
14 September is different from the other dates in that same ¶.
"On September 25, 2006, while these polls were being conducted…" Wasn't he giving a lot of interviews during this period of time? Were these special? Maybe discuss a bit of the contents more specifically?
"In order to be confirmed (comma needed) Ban…"
The ¶ about avoiding a veto from the permanent SC members, only his relationship with the US is mentioned. Was there any veto threat or concern from the other four?
Who was the SC abstention?
The "Baghdad attack" could obviously use more detail, or else get merged into some other section. Maybe a subhead of "Overseas travel" (weak name, I admit) including Iraq and the Africa trip?
"As the election of the successor to the Secretary-General Kofi Annan drew closer…" The prepositional phrase "of the successor to the Secretary-General Kofi Annan" is awkward. Maybe: "As the Secretary-General election drew closer…"
Likewise, the sentence which begins: "Specifically, his alleged practice of systematically…" is prepositional phrase purgatory. How about: "Specifically, some news articles mentioned his alleged practice of signing trade deals with European countries and pledging foreign aid to developing countries." Omit needless words! (And the bit about going to each country was mentioned earlier in the article. If mentioned here, it might be more comfortable in parentheses.)
"In an interview on 17 September 2006 he reportedly stated:" I expect something hard to believe or wildly controversial when I see "reportedly stated". In this case, it doesn't seem necessary.
"Perhaps an attempt at a comeback to claims of a lack of charisma would explain his singing…" Hmm. How about: "Perhaps to combat his image as uncharismatic, Ban sang…" Maybe this tidbit would be better placed in the "Personality" section above?
"…at his first encounter…" I think "in" is more appropriate.

I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. — Scartol · Talk 00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]