Wikipedia:Peer review/Taekwondo/archive2

Taekwondo

I think this article would be a great Featured article, but like the Hapkido article it may not have that "spark" that makes it worthwhile to be featured. Some have described certain parts of the article as a mess (look at its talk page). Some of the points I think that should be overhauled are these:

• The History Section (especially) - There has been major disagreement in editing this article in regards to the history of Tae Kwon Do. Some have disputed as to who was the head of which Tae Kwon Do organization, what dates certain Tae Kwon Do organizations were founded, what martial arts preceeded/influenced Tae Kwon Do, etc. While I don't think these disagreements could be resolved with a simple Wikipedia article, the best sources that could be used for this section in my opinion are ones that come from scholarly works on Tae Kwon Do/martial arts (for example, if anyone can access the research of Scott Shaw, which I've been unable to get a hold of). A general consensus of major points in Taekwondo history could be drawn to edit the article, any other minor details could be removed or left alone. Any and all sources should be cited.
• The role of the ITF (International Taekwon-Do Federation) should be highlighted a bit more. Much has been dealt with in the article about how the WTF brought Tae Kwon Do to the Olympic Games, yet that coverage seems to overshadow that of the ITF, which is the other major school in Tae Kwon Do.
• I personally do not like the newest section "Taekwondo on film." I see it as too short and too trivial for this article. It would be great if this section could be expanded to cover the influence Tae Kwon Do has not only on film, but on Korean culture and the West as a whole. Otherwise, I think the section should be removed, and its information merged into other articles or sections of Taekwondo.

Does anyone agree with my points? Do you have any suggestions for other sections in Taekwondo? If anyone practices or knows a lot about Tae Kwon Do and has access to scholarly resources about it, I and I'm sure others as well, will appreciate your input to this article. In addition, is the writing style of the article "encyclopedic" enough? Haha. Please leave any tips you may have. Thank you.

Wikiman86 21:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)