Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Kapyong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kapyong

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

I am nominating this article because I believe it meets the A class criteria and is about a fairly important event. I previously started this process in February, but had to withdraw it as the review hadn't been finalised before I deployed overseas. The last review is here. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Korean characters exist for the title? The absence compared to the Chinese one caught my attention YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure... maybe another user with more diverse language skills than myself might be able to assist (I barely speak English as it is and have only enough Dari to offend people)? Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no dabs, ext links work, images all have alt text (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Prelude section, "As part of the preparation, the battle hardened 39th and the 40th Field Army of the 13th Army Group were transferred..." (I think it should be ..."39th and 40th Field Armies...")
  - Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~in the Night battle, 23-24 April section, "Platoon Commander" I think should be lower case as per "company commander" used later;~~
  - Fixed x 2. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~in the Night battle section, suggest rewording: "This was largely due to the large number of..." (largely and large...);~~
  - Fixed... that was monsterous! Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~very minor point, but I found a few stylised apostrophes still (I will try to fix where I find them as it is a very minor point);~~
- ~~in the Withdrawal of 3RAR section, I think "Second-in-Command" and "Medical Orderly" should be lower case;~~
  - Yes, fixed now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~in the Withdrawal of 3RAR section, " ...was unable to moved at the scheduled time" (moved is an issue here, might need to be reworded);~~
  - Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~in the Fighting concludes section, "Although the Chinese continued to mount small attacks, the UN forces were now in control of the battle." (I think "now" creates a tense issue);~~
  - Fixed (I think... I'm no expert on grammar). Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~in the Aftermath section, you use the abbrievation "2nd AIF" without having first introduced it;~~
  - Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Aftermath section, "division including the 25th Canadian, 28th British Commonwealth and 29th British infantry brigades..." (I think "infantry brigades" should be capitalised here as it is part of the proper names of the units);
  - Yes you're right. Fixed now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~in the References section, do you know the location of publication for the Varhola work?~~ AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was difficult to track down (as its actually not in the book itself), but fixed now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the review, I think these are sorted now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: looks good. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very comprehensive and high quality article. My suggestions for further improvements are:
- 'Chinese Spring Offensive' shouldn't be in italics
  - Done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to play around with the size of the maps and photos - they're a bit small in the standard thumbnail size, particularly given the length of the article
  - Done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A separate order of battle article would be worthwhile Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Nick, will see what I can do. Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with fiddle changes Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations: spacing (O'Neill 1985, pp.125–127); pp. (Varhola 2000, p. 88 and 278. ; Breen 1994, p. 113–114. ; Breen 1994, p. 46–47.); replace ampersand (Chae, Chung & Yang); miscited, treat as partial republication in new format ("The battle of Kapyong, April 1951". The Australian War Memorial. is "Taken from Australia in the Korean war 1950-53, Volume 2: combat operations by Robert O'Neill" and in the section "Encyclopedia") ; miscited, is part of a named exhibition series "Out in the Cold: ..." ("Kapyong 23–24 April 1951". The Australian War Memorial. http://www.awm.gov.au/exhibitions/korea/operations/kapyong/. Retrieved 24 January 2010.);
  - Fixed most of these - will look at the partial republication issue shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bibliography:
  - Series come before publication locations (Appleman, Roy (1990).)
    - Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Georges Heights: Headquarters Training Command. HQTC of which military?
    - Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - US State, or Australian State + Australia, or Country: Georges Heights; Loftus; Crows Nest; North Sydney; Cambridge. Vancouver, Manchester and London are probably fine; but you might like to correct for completeness.
    - Done (I think I got them all). Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What makes: Coulthard-Clark, Chris (2001). a reliable tertiary source? Are articles individually authored, if so did you only consult particular articles?
    - Why wouldn't it be? The author is an official historian at the Australian War Memorial and has written dozens of books. Articles in the Encyclopaedia are not individually authored (AFAIK he wrote them all). Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - London, England. England, Really?
    - I think that means 'England is so obvious it should be removed'. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Help me out with what makes Centre of Military History and Australian Military Historical Publications reliable publishers?
    - Not sure how to respond to this... IMO there is no reason to assume they are not. CMH is a US gov organisation that sponsors academic research on US Army history and has been around for a long time, while AMHP is definately less well known but has published numerous unit histories, biographies and memoires (many in concert with the Army History Unit, such as 'The Fight Leaders'). Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Volume as part of the work title? Double check. O'Neill, Robert (1985). Australia in the Korean War 1950−53. Volume II.
    - Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very thorough review. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.