Talk:Battle of Onjong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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

1. Prose
   1. Can the article stick to the past tense?
   2. "The Korean War had begun" -> "The Korean War began"
      1. Fixed
   3. "The invasion was almost successful in conquering all of the Republic of Korea until the United Nations (UN) intervened, sending ground forces into the country under the command of the United States, which experienced early defeats until the Battle of the Pusan Perimeter, where the UN forces reversed North Korea's momentum." This sentence is a bit long
      1. Broken up
   4. "ROK 2nd Battalion" You didn't put ROK in front of the 2nd battalion. Suggest omitting it here.
      1. Omitted
   5. "the rest of the 40th Corps were busy" -> "was busy"
      1. Fixed
   6. "ROK 2nd Regiment" Could you consistently add ROK to the title?
      1. All ROK desination is now "ROK # Infantry Regiment"
   7. "6th Division" same for the divisions, and why is it "8th Infantry Division" but "6th Division"?
      1. Fixed
   8. "Upon realizing that the ROK II Corps did not take fall for the deception" -> "had not fallen" ??
      1. Fixed
   9. "The loss of surprise due the early start" -> "due to" ??
      1. Fixed
   10. What is footnote 33 about?
       1. Fixed
2. Accuracy
   1. "in order to protect China's territorial integrity" What does that mean?
      1. Removed due to that it is still subject to scholar debates.
   2. "Despite the strong objections from the People's Republic of China, on North Korea's northern border" I don't think this is correct.
      1. They did send strong warnings to UN that they will get involved if the UN crossed the 38th parallel.
   3. "Under strict secrecy, the PVA entered Korea on October 15." I don't think this is correct.
      1. It should be correct, it is Mao's own order to suprise the UN forces by sending PVA secretly across the Yalu River, and UN did not detect Chinese forces until they were ambushed.

         Appleman, South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu, p. 766: "The first of these troops apparently crossed the boundary on 13 or 14 October, although it is possible that some may have crossed on the 12th." But if you're certain of your sources... Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

         No sources ever agreed the exact time of Chinese entry. Most sources suggest a date between October 13-15, so I go with the flow. It is certainly possible that Chinese AAA and Engineer units were working on the bridges over the Yalu river as early as October 8-ish. Jim101 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

   4. "the ROK 7th Regiment did not reach the roadblock due to the lack of supplies." What supplies? Weapons? Food? Fuel?
      1. Fuel, fixed.
   5. Which division is the ROK 2nd Infantry Regiment from?
      1. 6th Division, Fixed
   6. "the Chinese were still able to penetrate his position" The old or the new?
      1. New, fixed
   7. What divisions made up the ROK II Corps?
      1. Clarified in the background.
   8. "This meant the right flank ... Exploiting the situation, the Chinese launched another attack on the now exposed Eighth Army center" Wouldn't attacking the flank have made more sense?
      1. Well, for the Chinese, the Unsan counterattck did not recieve the go ahead until the Onjong battle was deemed a success, and Chinese logistic problems made pursuing UN forces on the flank impossible. No sources explicitly linked those facts, but the all Korean War narratives suggest this conclusion. Jim101 (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)