Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Triangle Hill

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

Battle of Triangle Hill

Withdrawn by nominator —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Jim101 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe I covered all three sides of the story accurately without bias. All three sides story confirm each other and properly cited, and I used the Chinese claims in the article without invoking a third party or glorify them. Jim101 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments No problems were reported with the exteranl links. One dab link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Korean Campaign box template. Removed. Jim101 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - strong need for a copy-edit. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request of Wandalstouring, I've begun a copyedit of this article. I'll complete it in two full passes - the first to generally tighten the flow, and the second to fix any errors I may make and tweak that which I didn't spot before. Cam ^(Chat) 06:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everybody's criticisms and helps. Jim101 (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoS and references comments - (this version)
- ~~Not a requirement for A-class, but would it be possible for you to separate the 'notes' and the 'citations' as outlined at WP:REFGROUP? It makes it easier to read.~~
- ~~Again not a requirement for A, but FAC will probably have you remove the parenthesis around the references for consistency (using {{harvnb}})~~
- ~~Ref #33 - "it would explain why Chinese exaggerated UN numbers." - Is this original research?~~
- ~~Ref #37 - what makes http://www.valerosos.com/ a reliable source?~~
General comments - same version.
- Can anyone explain what is up with the image in the "Background" section?
- ~~The writing seems a bit POV-ish and/or novel-like at times...examples:~~
  - - ~~"Both sides demonstrated exceptional courage and tenacity."~~
    - "Also noteworthy was the extreme ferocity and discipline demonstrated by the Chinese counterattacking troops. They marched through artillery screens with such resolves that a rumor started among American observers concerning the possibility that Chinese military had drugged its conscripts into total oblivion toward personal danger.[20][14]"
    - "Despite outstanding bravery demonstrated by several Chinese soldiers, including Huang Jiguang, one of the most celebrated martyrs in Chinese propaganda machine for the next two decades, the PVA never took full control of the hill.[29]"

~~—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]~~

I'm trying to work on copy editing, but I never had a good record with it, so I need outside helps.

Fixed all problems that were pointed out with the reference. Notes and references are seperated. Unreliable sources deleted.

General comments
I don't quite get which picture...if you are refering to the photo about Triangle Hill, I remove it.

Actually, I was referring to the map in your first section. It should be right under the section header, so why is it 2/3 of the way down the section? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is still under the header by my browser. On IE I see no problem with the picture placement, but on Safari I do see a lot of pictures get displaced. Jim101 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV problems:
Removed.

The Chinese sucide attacks on Triangle Hill is a frequently cited case study from US sources on how Chinese army operates in 1950s . I just paraphase it with a citation from where I got it.
That's not a problem. Just paraphrase it in a NPOV way. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it. Jim101 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this statement because it is irrelevant to the battle, but the Chinese soldier mentioned is culturally significant on the Chinese side...need pointers on how to use this fact better in the article.
Feel free to add it in some attack he took part in, but link to can article on him (does he have one?). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit stupid statment on my part. removed.
No rob, that's what reviews are for! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the section to just about battle outcomes and significances. The rest about elections, Van Fleet retirement, and the comments about failure of the Eighth Army is removed.
Looks much better. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"His communication network was in taters from the beginning. By coincidence, the UN was conducting Kojo Amphibious Feint off the east coast of Korea between October 12–16,[28] which left the PVA high command in total confusion for three days.[4]"
"Kojo Amphibious Feint" is the only name I found for that naval exercise. It is the name recorded on US navy site I believe.
It's also mentioned as "amphibious feint at Kojo"...I replaced the name to shorten the sentence. Jim101 (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"On the same day, PVA also had a series of meetings to lay out detailed battle plans for its upcoming attack. "
It is PVA, because PLA and PVA don't have the same commanders and staffs.
Ah. Never mind then.

"Now Qin Jiwei ordered the 86th and 87th Regiments of the 29th Division to join the 45th Division into battle, while the 91st would serve as reserve."
On the Chinese source it literally said "to join". But I reworded the sentence a little to avoid any confusions.
Looks better! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim101 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. A few fixes before it's ready for A-class:

"was another in a series of bloody battles for dominant hilltop positions during the Korean War." Sounds awkward. You could say "was one of many bloody..."

Changed. Jim101 (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"598 meter hill" Please use {{convert}} here and throughout the article.

Changed. Jim101 (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have numbers of people in the Strength section in the infobox as well as just division listings? It can vary depending on past casualties and nationality as to how many are in a division.

Since this battle is not documented in detail anywhere in the western media, I could not find exact number of UN troops involved. The closest reference on UN number I could find is "almost all elements of US 7th Divsion and ROK 2nd Divsion". Chinese sources do have an estimate, but it is inflated. Jim101 (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, too bad. – Joe N utter 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph in Background contains uncited material.

I added more reference, hope it is enough. Jim101 (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but I'd still like to see a cite for Clark's mandates. – Joe N utter 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot the word "mandate" has some legal meanings...I changed that word to "concerns" and added a citation. Thanks for pointing that out. Jim101 (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the Chinese throwing grenades in the Opening Moves section, but you don't mention them throwing rocks, as they are in the image. Did they run out of grenades and have to throw rocks? You mention later that they were low on ammunition, but never say they were out in that section. It should be clarified.

I did mentioned the Chinese throwing rocks in the article (...the defenders expended numerous grenades, shaped charges, Bangalore torpedoes, and rocks.[19][16]...), But I added a footnote on this statement on why Chinese uses rocks, hope it can clarify your question. Jim101 (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. That is clearer now though, thanks. – Joe N utter 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"communist propaganda machine," Can this be phrased more neutrally?

I removed the phrase "propaganda machine". Jim101 (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The See also section is unnecessary, all of those are linked already in the article.

Removed, but the Wikicommon box looks weird in the notes section...any ideas on formatting? Jim101 (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with how it looks. – Joe N utter 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done some minor copy-editing for you. – Joe N utter 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Jim101 (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, good improvements, and now ready for my support. – Joe N utter 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As noted above, the text needs an extensive copyedit and rewrite. I suggest withdrawing the nomination until that is completed, and perhaps submitting for a peer review first before renominating for A-class consideration. The article contains good information, but the prose just needs some heavy work. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agrees with your suggestion. Jim101 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments in peer review about the sources. Also, the tone of the prose is rather adventurous and colourful. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.