Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Battle of Naktong Bulge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 06:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No problems reported with alt text, external links, or dab links. Well done!
- You've got a cn tag in the article, please see about addressing that. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Ed!(talk) 13:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- images are all appropriately licenced (no action required);
in the lead, I think there is a missing word here: "...turning point in the war for North Korean forces" (should there be a "the" in front of North Korean?);- That's supposed to refer to all North Korean forces. Putting "the North Korean forces" would make it sound like only the NK 4th Division was affected by the turning point of the war. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Outbreak of war section, there is a missing word here: "closest force were 24th Infantry" (should be a "the" in front of 24th);- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the 24th Infantry should be wikilinked on first mention in the Outbreak of the war section also;- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the North Korean advance section, this sentence does not provide details of how the advance was stopped: "American forces finally halted the North Korean advance". The next sentence talks about an ambush on US forces, so it is unclear how the American halted the advance;- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Naktong Bulge section, I think this clause is missing something "any attempted crossings by PKA" (should there be a "the" before PKA?);- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a typo here, but am not sure: "Mu and his division were highly decorated for the exploits" (I think "the" should be "their");- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Reinforcements section, this sentence seems to be missing something, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can you please re-read and see if something can be done with it? "There was also virtually no provision for the wounded in the division, and began to come apart under these stresses. "- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Destruction of the bridgehead section this clause needs clarification: "unleashing everything the U.S. had against..." (my issue is that the U.S. surely had more than just what was being employed in this instance by one of its task forces). Perhaps reword to "The offensive began at 08:00 on August 17, when the US forces unleashed everything they had...";- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the same section use of word "kicked off" is probably a little bit too informal (see above rewording";- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Aftermath section, this clause seems indistinct: "...300 or 400 in each of its regiments". I think it would work better if you add the word "men";- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
last sentence of the Aftermath section needs a citation;- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there is a slight inconsistency in how you treat numbers less than ten, for instance in the Aftermath section "2 captured..." then later "one missing".— AustralianRupert (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I have addressed all of your concerns. —Ed!(talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TomStar81 (Talk) 18:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I have slightly reworded the lead and a couple of other sentences, please check to see if you're happy with it.- It looks good to me. —Ed!(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some overlinking, for instance 24th Infantry Division is linked in the lead and Outbreak of War para, please check if there are other instances- Done. —Ed!(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In some places the prose is a little choppy, for instance in the North Korean advance para- I've reworked that para. —Ed!(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence in the North Korean attack section could be reworked: "The North Korean attack caught the Americans, who were expecting an attack from further north, by surprise and threatened to split the American lines and disrupt supply lines to the north." Perhaps: Expecting an attack from further north, the North Korean attack caught the Americans by surprise, threatening to split the American lines and disrupt supply lines to the north.- Reworked and split that sentence. —Ed!(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence in the Aftermath section should probably be rewritten: "Some thousands of the members of the division, conscripted South Koreans, deserted." Seems choppy.- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway that's it from me. Overall another good article, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have responded to all of your concerns. —Ed!(talk) 20:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2010 (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.