Talk:Battle of Masan

Commentary

A good article, definitely B-class. Here are some comments, mostly minor and easily fixed:

• Add re-direct links to the first mention of "Task Force Smith" and "burp gun".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove dead re-direct links that salt the article, esp. the latter half.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Subjective descriptors: Certain subjective terms can be difficult to conceptualize for the reader, without some precedent reference to numbers. In the section Battle of Masan#Outbreak of War, the use of "wiped out" implies >90% KIA; the use of "almost completely destroyed" conveys the idea of 60-90% casualties, as opposed to KIAs only; the reason being that the "destruction" of a unit is often related to the incapacitation of its combat effectiveness, thus the destruction or loss of equipment in addition to the loss of killed, wounded, captured, or missing personnel.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Unit Typo?: In the section Battle of Masan#Outbreak of War, the 24th Infantry Division is referred to (directly) twice, and indirectly several times. I suspect that either the 25th Infantry Division or the 24th Infantry Regiment is meant here, but as it is, it's quite confusing.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• A or AN ROK?: In the section Battle of Masan#Battle of Battle Mountain, the 4th para. refers to "an ROK patrol". Shouldn't the article be "a"? I usually hear the acronym "ROK" pronounced "rock", but I understand if you're treating it as an abbreviation, "are-oh-kay". Is there any guideline on this?
  • All the references to it I've seen in literature refer to "an ROK" so I've tried to just be consistent with them. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Date Format: In the last paragraph of Battle of Masan#Battle of Nam River, the date format switches between a civilian format (September 1) and a military format (5 September).
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, mostly minor stuff. The subject is treated well in an appropriate amount of detail, and due regard is given to the actions of individual units that isn't seen often enough in historical texts. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• • I have responded to everything. Thanks for the review! —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

OK, I will review this article over the next couple of days.

Check list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Lead&Infobox:
  • Consistency. Are the belligerents UN or US and South Korea?
    • Depends on the context. Politically, South Korea was not a part of the UN in 1950, so South Korea and the US had a joint military venture in the battle, per the infobox. But the South Korean troops fell under the United Nations command, per the text. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Casualties. Don't add up with the Aftermath section. I count 1057 killed, 3085 wounded and 20 captured or missing. No South Korean casualties given.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Battle
  • The part on North Korean conscription of South Korean civilians deserves a subsection. Possibly add a couple of sentences on their loyalty, combat value and desertions, possibly comparing these problems to similar problems for the 24th Infantry.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • T-34 picture. Perhaps change the caption to "T-34 tanks like this one..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A map (or even a simple schematic) would help. I do not know Korean geography very well and the battle is difficult to follow for an average reader, who would not read the entire article in detail.
    • Expanded. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Aftermath
  • Needs expansion. What was wider strategic impact of the battle? How did it affect the Battle of Pusan as a whole?
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Dab links: 25th Infantry Division, 25th Division, Armored Car, Haman need to be fixed D2306 (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer: D2306 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing comments

I think this is a good article. The only comment is again on South Korea losses. Probably a quick mentions that some of the 40,000 casualties of the Battle of Pusan occurred there.D2306 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)