Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hill 303 massacre

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.

Closed as Promoted - Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hill 303 massacre

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 00:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a rather skillful piece of writing, given that mistreatment of US POW is a hot button issue that is seldom understood by the public. Just one comment, I quote Mahoney, Kevin (2001), Formidable Enemies: the North Korean and Chinese Soldier in the Korean War, Novato, CA: Presidio Press, ISBN 9780891417385, page 106: "Some North Koreans, no doubt, resented the presences of foreign troops in a conflict that they viewed as a strictly Korean affair, and their feelings could have found an outlet in executions of American prisoners." Given that Mahoney's comment is more of a general overview of all the POW executions carried out during the war, do you think his comment is relevant in this case? Jim101 (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I tend to look at that as more of an "educated opinion." It's difficult to confirm that sentiment existed, and I was trying to be neutral and avoid such explanations, which I fear would come off as fringe theories. —Ed!^(talk) 06:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking...for the record the idea of "America supports Japan to re-dominate Asia" are extremely powerful and popular within NK and Chinese society at that time. Anyway, it's just something you may want to take a look if you have the time. I support this article. Jim101 (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some minor comments / recommendations:
- Leade: There is reference to a "Pair of memorials" - this is explained in the last section of the article. But one continually wonders why there was a "pair" - perhaps its better to simply refer to "memorials" rather than a "pair of memorials" in the leade.
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Section titled "North Korean Advance." Reference is made to a "platoon of tanks" - is this correct?
  - Yes. A platoon of tanks is a column of 4-6 tanks. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Troop for armour, platoon for infantry? Farawayman (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Section "Imprisonment:" "....pounded.... the positions heavily" I think "pounded" implies heavy bombardment.
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Section "Massacre:" The first three sentences of this section are effectively the crux of the article. I would think that they require specific citations.
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Section "American Response" - suggest that the quotation be done in italics or using quotation marks.
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ed, I think you forgot to save this edit, but its not a major issue! Farawayman (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support subject to above. Farawayman (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have corrected everything you suggested. —Ed!^(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Good show! Unqualified Support Farawayman (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some minor comments:

- In summary, I thought it was an admirable attempt to neutrally cover a difficult military episode. A few detailed points...
- "Five North Korean divisions amassed to oppose the UN at Taegu, from south to north, the 10th,[11] 3rd, 15th, 13th,[12] 1st Divisions occupied a line from Tuksong-dong and around Waegwan to Kunwi." - I thought the comma after Taegu might usefully be a semi-colon (but my grammar's not great!).
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hill 303 is an elongated oval 2 miles (3.2 km) long on a northeast-southwest axis..." How about "Hill 303 forms an elongated oval..."?
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "At this point, the force on the hill was cut off from the rest of the American force." - pedantic, but wasn't it cut off as of 08:30 in the previous sentence but one?
  - Reordered sentences. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Later in the morning the platoon heard tank motors and saw two North Korean T-34s followed by 200 or more enemy soldiers on the road below them." Does this imply that there were potentially more than two T-34s? Also, the word "motors" might be redundant. (e.g. could this say "Later in the morning the platoon saw two North Korean T-34s followed by 200 or more enemy soldiers on the road below them."?)
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 4th Company, 2nd Battalion, 206th Mechanized Infantry Regiment of the NK 105th Armored Division were the captors." - could this read "They were captured by the 4th company, 2nd battalion..."?
  - Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The original captors did not retain possession of the prisoners throughout the next two days." This read slightly oddly to me. Do you mean "continuous possession"? (i.e. they continued to guard the prisoners, but not continuously?")
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "One of the mortarmen, Cpl. Roy L. Day, Jr., spoke Japanese and spoke..." Suggest that the first "spoke" becomes "could speak".
  - I altered to "spoke Japanese and was able to converse..." as part of my copyedit, which might achieve the same aim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "At 14:00 on August 17, an air strike came in..." Was this a UN airstrike?
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- " group of 14 North Korean guards signaled by superiors fired" - I wasn't sure what "signalled" meant in this context? (e.g. just "ordered", or "directed"...?)
  - I used "directed" in my ce FWIW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The strike and artillery preparation, were..." not sure the comma is necessary.
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "...torture and execution of prisoners thanks to decades..." Suggest "thanks to" > "due to the"
  - I used "due to" in my ce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Signaled by superiors" may mean designated by superiors to execute the orders, but this needs to be clarified. Cs32en Talk to me 00:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything you mentioned has been addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The quote in the section "American response" needs some kind of introduction. Cs32en Talk to me 00:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"American" may be replaced by "United States" or "U.S.". Cs32en Talk to me 00:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox says "Attack type: Massacre." However, it was not an attack, it was an execution (neutral language) or a massacre (the common term). Cs32en Talk to me 00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I think I have responded to everything you addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

This looks quite well put together. I feel the prose could use some copyediting, however, which I'm happy to supply -- probably quicker than noting things down here. Naturally if I accidentally alter any meaning, feel free to revert... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Completed my copyedit and pretty close to supporting, but like to see comments by other editors above acknowledged first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have responded to all of the above concerns you didn't address. Thank you for your help! —Ed!^(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tks, looks good to me -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks, but it looks okay to me. Well done. A few tech comments for the sake of the review:
- no dabs;
- ext links all work;
- images all have alt text. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:16, 7 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.