Talk:Battle of Yongsan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig page: Far East Command

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead and I know why but you interchange South Korea and Republic of Korea. Choose one of them and put in brackets next to it formerly or now known as... You continue to interchange in the main prose. Make a choice and stick with it.

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the lead with the other battle second para. State that it was a nearby battle and therefore had consequences on the battle your talking about. But its rather confusing what you are talking about. A separte battle or a fight within the same battle. Clarity needed. KnowIG (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

battalion of artillery from the NK 4th Division, gave it unusual weapon support. What was unusual

Careful when describing positioning. Easy to get confused when you chuck this regement of this group etc when you haven't talked about 1 side for a bit. also that map is not that detailed so really be careful. Maybe a bit too much descriptiveness which maybe unneeded. So you may want to use full names more often just to aid the reader.

Since the destroyed Pershing tanks blocked fields of fire, four others withdrew to better positions. 4 what? tanks.

but Walker did not feel the inexperienced. That the

KnowIG (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will the above issues be addressed soon? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I haven't had time lately to do much work on Wikipedia. I'll get to all of this ASAP. —Ed!^(talk) 23:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dana boomer

Because KnowIG has been indef blocked, I will be picking up this review, if it is acceptable to the nominator. Comments shortly... Dana boomer (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Do we really need the coordinates displayed both at the top of the article and in the infobox?
Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September push, "the UN navy." The UN had a navy? What countries contributed to it?
Added a link to Battle of Pusan Perimeter order of battle to note ships in this navy.

Battle, "gave it unusual weapon support." What was unusual about it?
Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korean attack, "in a sharp fight." What is a sharp fight?
Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcements, "Hill reorganized" Who's Hill?
Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcements, "KATUSAs". Should probably spell out/explain this term the first time it is used.
Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 5 counterattack, "September 5 was a day of heavy casualties everywhere on the Pusan Perimeter" This paragraph only deals with the US & their allies. Is there any data on the North Koreans? Otherwise it seems rather lopsided.
Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Gugeler has no Citations entry; Millett has no Sources entry.
Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article. A few comments regarding prose and a couple of referencing tweaks that need to be made, so I am placing the article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything. Thanks for the review! —Ed!^(talk) 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response - I missed your edits to the page. Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]