Talk:Third Battle of Seoul/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Ed!^(talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   On Hold

   1. Expand the lead to a few paragraphs to summarize the entire article adequately.
      1. Give me a few days...I'm a slow writer.
         1. Expanded into three paragraphs
   2. Background section: "its unexpected victories over the UN forces had made the Chinese leadership intoxicated with success." — please reword this. "intoxicated with success" isn't very encyclopedic.
      1. I tried a different reword, although all sources I have are extremely critical on the self-delusion of the Chinese command.
   3. "Immediately after the PVA 13th Army's victory over the US Eighth Army" — please explain which battle you are referring to here.
      1. Fixed
   4. "A road dubbed "Route 33" runs south across the 38th parallel" — is there an explanation as to why this road is called "Route 33?"
      1. No explanation aside from the fact that it's just labeled Route 33 by South Korean government.
   5. Evacuation of Seoul Section: "The US 19th Infantry Regiment on the division's left flank was then involved in numerous hand to hand struggles with the Chinese around Uijeongbu" — Was there fierce fighting that boiled down to hand-to-hand combat? Was there hand to hand combat because one side lacked weapons? An instance of hand-to-hand combat in modern warfare is exceptional and should be explained.
      1. Details are sketchy at best, but Appleman's book implied that fierce fighting boiled down to hand-to-hand combat. I reworded to imply that.
   6. "while another 208 British soldiers were missing in action" — what happened to these men? Were they eventually captured? Did they all end up dead?
      1. Captured, I believe, although official British history shed no light on this issue. I added an unrelated study on British POW in the hope that I didn't breach WP:SYN.
   7. You should devote part of the Aftermath section to listing ESTIMATED final casualty numbers for both sides.
      1. Give me a few days, this issue is a bit complex, and the numbers on UN side are hard to compile because there aren't any sources that did a total estimation on UN side. Given that this is more of a China vs South Korea battle, the lack of ROK numbers or even a description of ROK losses is really hard to put all casualty numbers into perspective. Jim101 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
         1. Best I can do is to narrow the UN casualties to moderate...Let me see if it is okay with you. I also added the Chinese numbers in the aftermath section. Jim101 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass No problems there.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold for a few small things to be worked out. —Ed!^(talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I approve. Passing the article. —Ed!^(talk) 04:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)