Talk:Great Naktong Offensive/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Are you able to add an infobox?
- It would be essentially the same as Battle of Pusan Perimeter, this article is a sub-article of that one. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Too easy, its not a game stopper. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence seems a little awkward: "The Great Naktong Offensive was a North Korean military offensive against United Nations and Republic of Korea forces from September 1–15, 1950 early in the Korean War." Perhaps consider "The Great Naktong Offensive was a North Korean military offensive against United Nations and Republic of Korea forces early in the Korean War, occurring from September 1–15, 1950."
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinking in the lead of United Nations and Republic of Korea per WP:REPEATLINK.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems contradictory "For the first several months of the war in June 1950". In particular June is only one month, but you say for the first several month maybe reword to something like "For the first several months since the outbreak of the war in June 1950, the North Korean Army..."
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"From the outbreak of the Korean War and the invasion of South Korea by the North..." perhaps reword as "From the outbreak of the Korean War following the invasion of South Korea by the North..."
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little repetitive: "a UN counteroffensive before countering", perhaps reword?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect format for timings in places, for instance "Groups 1 and 2 were to begin their attack at 2330 on August 31, and Groups 3, 4 and 5 would begin their attacks at 1800 on September 2." This should be "23:30" and "18:00" per WP:MOSTIME.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect presentation of ranks in places. For instance: " US Lieutenant General Walton Walker ordered US Major General John B. Coulter to..." These should just be "Lietenant General" and "Major General". Done
Incorrect time format here to: "At 0400 August 27, a..." Done
Incorrect rank format here to "NK Major Kim Song Jun" should just be "Major Kim Song Jun". Done
"Heavy rains fell during the night of September 5-6 and", the date range should use an endash not a hyphen per WP:DASH. Done
"On the division left, meanwhile..." should this be "On the division's left, meanwhile..." Done
Endashs required here too: "During the night of September 7-8 the..." and " 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry, the night of September 2-3 on Hill 448 west..." Done
"This hill, 10 miles (16 km) north of Taegu, gave observation all the way south..." might work better as "This hill, 10 miles (16 km) north of Taegu, afforded observation all the way south..." Done
Incorrect presentation of some measurements, for instance "a 76-mm. self-propelled", "captured four 120-mm. mortars" and " ration of 105-mm. howitzer". Measurements which are adjectives are only hyphenated when written in full per WP:MEASUREMENT. In this case these should be "76 mm", "120 mm" and "105 mm". Done
"General Walker decided that the situation..." should just be "Walker decided that the situation..." as you have already formally introduced him per WP:SURNAME. Done
Overlinking of air strikes and Lieutenant Colonel. Done
Marines should be capitalised here I think: "Coordinating its attack with that of the marines..." Done
Incorrect rank format here " US Lieutenant Colonel Paul F. Roberts' 2nd...", "US First Lieutenant Houston M. McMurray..." and ", US Lieutenant Colonel Paul F. Roberts, the 2nd Battalion commander..." Done
"most of the 2nd Battalion, 24th Infantry, fled its positions..." should be "most of the 2nd Battalion, 24th Infantry, fled their positions..." Done
Incorrect time format here: "At 1445 September 1, Kean ordered", should be "14:45" as above. Done
And here "and by 1825 had seized the first long ridge 500 yards west of Haman. By 2000 it had..." Done
And here "At 2330 on August 31, a North Korean..." Done
And here "At 0030, North Korean troops streamed through this..." Done
Incorrect rank format here "led by US Lieutenant Colonel John L. Wilkins, Jr..." Done
"In the low ground between these two battalions at the river ferry crossing site, Fisher had placed 300..." Who was Fisher? He needs to be formally introduced first with rank and full name, then all subsequent instances should just use his last name per WP:SURNAME. Done
Detailed review to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals multiple errors with reference consolidation:
- ~~"{{harvnb|Millett|2000|p=507}}" (Multiple references contain the same content)~~
- ~~"Apple443" (Multiple references are using the same name)~~
  - The bulk of these have now been fixed by User:Headbomb. Just a couple left:
    - ~~"Alex180" (Multiple references are using the same name)~~
    - ~~"Apple466" (Multiple references are using the same name)~~ Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done Anotherclown (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguations: 1 dab link [3].
- KMAG. Done
Linkrot: External links all check out [4] (no action required).
Alt text: One of the images lacks alt text (the map in the lead) so you might consider adding it for consistency [5] (suggestion only).
Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working so will AGF and do a spot check where I have the source available [6] (no action required).

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
- Prose here "was subsequently destroyed with the UN counterattack at Inchon" would probably work better as "was subsequently destroyed by the UN counterattack at Inchon."
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is repetitive and not quite right gramatically: "From the outbreak of the Korean War following the invasion of South Korea by the North in June 1950, the North Korean People's Army had enjoyed superiority in both manpower and equipment over both the Republic of Korea Army and the United Nations forces dispatched to South Korea to prevent it from collapsing." Specifically use of "both" twice. Might work better as "From the outbreak of the Korean War following the invasion of South Korea by the North in June 1950, the North Korean People's Army had enjoyed superiority in both manpower and equipment over the Republic of Korea Army and the United Nations forces which had been dispatched to South Korea to prevent it from collapsing."
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also a little repetitive: "The North Korean strategy was to aggressively pursue UN and ROK forces on all avenues of approach south and to engage them aggressively..." Specifically "aggressively twice. Perhaps reword?
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a little informal: "with plenty of reserves." Perhaps reword?
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose here: "all along the front, the North Korean troops were reeling from these defeats, the first time in the war their strategies were not working." Perhaps "All along the front the North Korean troops were reeling from these defeats, which were the first time in the war that the strategies had failed."
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The North Koreans also relied primarily on night attacks to counter the UN's major advantages in air superiority and naval firepower. North Korean generals thought such night attacks would prevent UN forces from firing effectively and result in large amounts of UN friendly fire." Perhaps consider something like this "The North Koreans relied primarily on night attacks to counter UN air superiority and naval firepower, with the North Korean generals believing that such attacks would prevent UN forces from firing effectively and result in heavy casualties from friendly fire."
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlinking of Major General John B. Coulter. Done
- "Coulter had the mission of eliminating..." might work better as "Coulter was tasked with eliminating..." Done
- Consider wikilinking battery. Done
- This seems a little problematic gramatically "stopping the weak, advanced US force short of the crest...", perhaps reword to something like "stopping the weak leading US elements short of the crest". Done
- This paragraph is a little repetitive: "East of the 2nd Battalion, the North Koreans attacked..." In particular you use the phrase "on division orders", perhaps reword one? Done
- "fourteen battalions of South Korean" should be "14 battalions..." per [[WP::MOSNUM]]. Done
- Is this what you intended: "The fighting continued unabated north of Taegu on the 15th. The 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry, still fought to gain control of Hill 570 on the east side of the Tabu-dong highway. On the other side, the 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry, attacked Hill 401 where a North Korean force had penetrated in a gap between"? Specifically the 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry is attacking in two places, or is one of these a typo? If it is the same unit you might consider rewording it so that it is less repetitive (IMO you don't need to use the same unit name twice in two sentences). Done
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It took over a 16,000 yards (15,000 m) Naktong River front..." might work better as "It took over a 16,000 yards (15,000 m) front on the Naktong River..." Done
- This isn't a sentence: "At 21:00 the first shells of what proved to be a two-hour North Korean artillery and mortar preparation against the American river positions of 2nd Platoon." What about the shells? Done
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "This force was unable to reach C Company, but Jensen collected..." who is Jensen? Done
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Keiser decided that this situation made..." who is Keiser? Done
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "overran the regimental command post, compelling Freeman to..." who is Freeman? Done
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "At 14:45 on September 1, Kean ordered an..." who is Kean? Done
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Check's infantry moved out in attack west..." who is Check? Done
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I&R platoon be wikilinked to something? Done
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done a light copy-edit, so please check I haven't altered the meaning of anything.
  - Everything looks good. —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Excellent use of WP:RS.
- Citations all follow a consistent style.
- Minor issues:
  - Alexander and Hastings "New York, New York" might be better as "New York City, New York" (suggestion only). Done
  - Catchpole "London, England", probably better as "London, United Kingdom" (suggestion only). Done

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
- This article is comprehensive. My only concern is the aftermath section which really is a little light. Only thing missing though is an overview of what happened next. Can this be added? Done
  - Added more. —Ed!^(talk) 01:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I would consider reordering the paragraphs in the aftermath, switching the 2nd paragraph with the 1st for flow (suggestion only). Done
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- Yes, this seems fine to me.

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
- No issues here.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
- Images all appear to be PD and seem appropriate for the article.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
- There are quite a number of prose and technical issues that need to be worked through, however I see no reason why these will hold back the article. IMO this is quite good already, just need a little attention to some of the smaller things. Happy to discuss anything you don't agree with. Anotherclown (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Apologies for taking so long on this one. I have some RL things that have been getting in the way. I'll get to work on it soon. —Ed!^(talk) 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Ed. Take your time, I'm happy to leave this one open for a while. Anotherclown (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead made a further copy-edit and marked alot of my comments as done. There are still a few that I have not done though as I don't know the authors intent and don't want to unintentionally change the meaning of something. I have marked these with the NOT DONE template. Ed when you get a change please have a look at these and see what you think. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have finally responded and fixed everything. I thank you for your patience and assistance. —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All my points have been addressed now, so I'm happy to promote this article now. Good work Ed. Anotherclown (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image repetition

Hi, I don't it has been mentioned above, but I notice the same image has been used twice in the article - refer to the "Second Naktong Bulge" and then the following "Yongsan" section. Zawed (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zawed. Yes you are right! Not sure how I missed that. Ed!, of course you will need to remove one of these. Anotherclown (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]