Talk:Battle of Nam River/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

• Citations: - the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
• Disambiguations: one dab (Armored car) and one redirect back to itself (Battle of the Nam River) - [3]
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4] (no action required)
• Alt text: Images all have alt text - [5] (no action required)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • In the outbreak of war section you mention the US Eighth Army without wikilinking it or explaining what it was (this is probably the case in some of your other articles aswell and for some reason I didn't think about it until now). Maybe you could add a sentence about it on the end of the first paragraph?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe wikilink Task Force Smith?;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems a little clumsy: "connecting the Masan road with the one over the Nam River to Uiryong." Specifically 'the one'... maybe "connecting the Masan road with the road over the Nam River to Uiryong" or if you're concerned about repetition maybe: "connecting the Masan road with that over the Nam River to Uiryong.";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is some inconsistency with the way you treat the names of US units, for instance sometimes you will write 'US 2nd Division' then in others '25th Division', IMO what ever you chose you need to be consistent although I think if you were to adopt 'US 2nd Division' as the convention it might make it more clear (to distinguish against NK units etc).
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Likewise some inconsistency with NK units, sometimes you use 'North Korean 7th Division' and in other 'NK 7th Division';
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a bit repetitive: "The 35th Infantry, facing shortages of equipment and reinforcements, was under-equipped but nonetheless prepared for an attack." Specifically you say it was 'facing shortages of equipment' and 'was under-equipped'. Seems a bit redundant to me.;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "In the low ground between these two battalions at the river ferry crossing site, Fisher had placed 300"... who is Fisher? You need to introduce him as the commander of the US 35th Infantry Regiment before this point;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "By 02:30 the B Company riflemen were stripping machine gun ammunition belts for their rifles." This may require a bit more explaination to be clear to readers. Specifically why were they stripping the belts (i.e. to use the ammunition for their rifles, presumably because they were running low);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems problematic to me: "a tank-led relief force of C Company headquarters troops", maybe reword to something like: "a relief force from C Company headquarters led by tanks" or something similar?;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Although Colonel Fisher's 35th", this should just be "Fisher's 35th" once you have correctly introduced him above;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Tense seems an issue here: "Survivors from the 24th Infantry's 1st and 2nd battalions would appear in the 35th's lines, and the regimental commanders would later find out the entire regiment had crumbled under North Korean attack. Kean ordered the 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry to move in and help restore the 24th's position." Specifically I think use of 'would' should be avoided where possible.;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is repetitive for me: "Aerial observers saw an estimated four companies crossing there and directed fire of the 64th Field Artillery Battalion on the crossing force, which destroyed an estimated three-fourths of it. Fighter planes then strafed the survivors. Aerial observers saw another large group in the open at the river later in the day and directed artillery fire on it with an estimated 200 North Korean casualties." Specifically starting two sentences with 'Aerial observers'. May it could just be reworded as: "Aerial observers saw an estimated four companies crossing there and directed fire of the 64th Field Artillery Battalion on the crossing force, which destroyed an estimated three-fourths of it. Fighter planes then strafed the survivors. Another large group was also observed in the open at the river later in the day and the aerial observers directed artillery fire on it with an estimated 200 North Korean casualties."
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Some overlinking, e.g. cantilever steel is linked twice;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a little clumsy: "By September 2, E Company in a heavy battle had destroyed most of a North Korean battalion." Maybe reword to "By September 2, E Company had destroyed most of a North Korean battalion in a heavy battle.";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "But by this time many enemy troops", watch the use of 'enemy' here, probably best to reword to 'North Korean' for POV;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is an issue grammer-wise: "After fighting all that night the battalion, the next day at 15:00, reached a position south of the original defensive positions of G Company, 35th Infantry." Maybe reword along the lines of: "After fighting all night, the next day at 15:00 the battalion reached a position south of the original defensive positions of G Company, 35th Infantry."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "By evening that day", specifically "that day" seems redundant to me;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is incorrect: " Fighting in support of the Nam River front in the northern part of the 25th Division sector were five batteries of the 159th and 64th Field Artillery Battalions, firing 105-mm. howitzers, and one battery of the 90th Field Artillery Battalion which fired 155-mm. howitzers,[48] for a total of 36 guns. One 155-mm. howitzer fired from Komam-ni to the area north...". Per WP:MOSNUM standard symbols for units are undotted, as such this should be "105-mm howitzers" and "155-mm howitzers" etc. The hyphen is correct IMO as the measurements are being used as adjectives in this case.;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk)
  • "25th Division generally was under much less enemy pressure after September 5", maybe just "25th Division generally was under much less pressure after September 5", i.e. remove 'enemy' for POV;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "On 16 September, however" this should be September 16 for consistency with the rest of the dates in the article; and
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "The attacking force of over 20,000 had been reduced to only 6,000 by the end of the fights at Masan." Specifically "fights at Masan", were there multiple battles there? Or would it be better reworded as "fighting at Masan".
    • That figure refers to the four articles I've written on the Masan battle, Battle of Masan, Battle of Battle Mountain, Battle of Haman and this one. So the current context works. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • References all lack place of publishing.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• 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':

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • A few issues above that need to be rectified, otherwise this looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry about this delay, I've had a very hard time getting time to edit. I'll get to this by the weekend and let you know. —Ed!^(talk) 06:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries at all. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

How far are we on getting the issues fixed? Been another couple weeks with not much going on. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Still a bit of work to go from my point of view, but I'm happy to keep this one open for a while if Ed needs a bit more time. Anotherclown (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I apologive for the protracted review, I really did need the time. I have addressed everything now. —Ed!^(talk) 03:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No worries, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)