Talk:Battle of Kujin/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

• according to the tools there are no disambigs;
• ext links all work;
• all images have alt text except the one in the infobox: [3].

Added now. Anotherclown (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• the opening sentence of the lead has a lot of information in it. I wonder if it could be reworded or split. Here is my suggestion: "The Battle of Kujin (25-26 October 1950), also known as the Battle of the Broken Bridge, took place at the start of the Korean War during the United Nations' (UN) offensive towards the Yalu River. Involving forces from Australia and North Korea, the battle was fought between th 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR) and elements of the Korean People's Army's 17th Tank Brigade over control of a key bridge that spanned the Taeryong River near Kujin, North Korea."

I don't think this quite works either because it implies the battle occurred at the start of the war. However the war started in late June and Kujin occurred in October. Ultimately what I was trying to say was that the offensive followed the invasion. I have slightly trimmed and reworded it now so please have a look at let me know if you think it needs further changes. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Your changes look fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• in the lead, "took place during the United Nations (UN) offensive towards" - should this be "United Nations' (UN)" - possessive?

Yes, fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• my dictionary doesn't like "understrength" - should it be "under strength" (you seem to use both iterations in the text, so probably need to be consistent either way)?

'Under strength' appears to be correct, so I have reworded it. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• "With the way now reported clear" - perhaps just "With the way reported clear" (I think the word "now" is problematic tensewise);

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Might be that I'm reading this when tired, but I'm slightly confused by the dates, the lead makes it sound like the fighting went into 27 October. For instance, "At 04:00 on 26 October" is then later followed by "By dawn the following day";

Yes I agree this is problematic. I have just removed 'the following day' which I think works. Again please let me know if you think further rewording is required. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• in the Background, this sentence seems a little confusing: "During this time the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR) remained in Japan and had been preparing to return to Australia prior to the outbreak of the war". Perhaps it just needs to be reordered. For instance: "During this time the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR), which had been preparing to return to Australia prior to the outbreak of the war, remained in Japan, however on 26 July...";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think paired commas are required here: "The battalion's commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel Floyd Walsh was subsequently replaced" - "The battalion's commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Floyd Walsh, was subsequently replaced";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• in the Prelude, this sentence is quite long and could probably be split: "Meanwhile the road bridge at Anju, 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) east, was also found to be damaged by ROK 1st Division when it entered the town, however following repairs it was made available to the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade's light wheeled vehicles on 25 October, while the accompanying Sherman tanks located a ford 4.8 kilometres (3.0 mi) upstream, and were able to cross the Chongchon at that point";

I have split the sentence now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure about the use of the word "now", for instance: "Winter was approaching and the British and Australians now encountered the first of the cold weather". Perhaps this could be reworded to: "With winter approaching, the British and Australians encountered the first of the cold weather as the temperature began to drop well below freezing at night";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• this is a little confusing: "woken during the battle to send a number of their bazookas forward to B Company as it was suspected that they were faulty due to being poorly maintained" (specifically, it seems that you are saying that it was suspected that C Company's bazookas were faulty and so they sent them forward, but that obviously isn't what is intended);

Reworded. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, 26 October subsection: "By dawn the following day the Australians were still in possession of the bridgehead across the Taeryong". Slightly confusing date. Perhaps just say "By dawn on 26 October the Australians...";

As above. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath: "The fighting at Kujin became known as the "Battle of the Broken Bridge" (perhaps you should state to whom it become known as such);

Yes absolutly. Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath, "equipped with twenty tanks, and although the North Koreans had suffered" ("twenty" could probably be changed to "20" - number greater than nine);

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath, I'm not sure about the use of the word "freakishly" - sounds a little like editorialising. Perhaps just say "who was wounded in the stomach";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• it is just a nitpick, but I think some of the citations are out of order. For instance: "A Company with the intention of re-occupying the ridges overlooking the river crossing, likely unaware of the Australian dispositions.[34][32]";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• No issues: the article is well referenced using reliable sources.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• No issues: the article covers all the main aspects of the topic and doesn't go beyond that.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It would be great to get more of a North Korean perspective, but from the catelogue searches I've done I believe that it reflects the sourcing that is available around the topic so in this case I don't believe that it would be possible to get much more in this regard. As such I am happy that it meets the NPOV criteria.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• No issues: images seem appropriately licenced and are appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Looks quite good. A few prose issues to work through/discuss, but not much really. I made a few tweaks as I was going through the article. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time and comments. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries, the changes all look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)