Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Bowling Alley/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:40, 12 February 2011 [1].

Battle of the Bowling Alley edit

Battle of the Bowling Alley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 03:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. It has passed GAN and a MILHIST ACR. —Ed!(talk) 03:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1c/2c Review Good. But 3 fixits required. I haven't previously seen this one in another review venue. No DOI/PMIDs to check, so they're fine. Haven't spot checked. Source quality is good. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • London, England => London, UK
    • Publisher Location: Ecker, Richard E. (2004); Leckie, Robert (1996)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images:
  1. File:Tank Action in the Bowling Alley.jpg, File:Maj. Gen. Paik Sun Yup.jpg and File:The Bowling Alley.jpg are not found at the given source (so far as I can see) and have no evidence to attribute them to an Army photographer as opposed to, say, a journalist.Fixed. Kelly hi! 00:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. File:Lewis L. Millett.jpg - the source contains no attribution for the photo or evidence it was taken by an Army photographer.
  3. File:T3427inf.jpg No attribution or evidence of authorship at given source.
  • I noticed that US Forces Korea has labeled their Flickr site as "non-commercial use only" but I don't believe they can legally do that, so I'm not objecting to images sourced from there. Kelly hi! 21:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
South to Naktong North to Yalu is a US government publication, and on page xxiv it specifically states "Illustrations are from Department of Defense files". Specifically:
I'm not sure about File:Lewis L. Millett.jpg and File:T3427inf.jpg through. Jim101 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the heads-up on the sourcing. I'll spend some time fixing up the images. Kelly hi! 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the two images in question. There is plenty of other illustration for the article. —Ed!(talk) 15:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments the article would benefit with a more detailed map especially one thats focused on the bowling alley, like the map Lieutenant Colonel Chong Pong Uk appears to be an interesting subject the articles hint at this but theres no link(not even a red one). Both of these points are enhancements but they arent necessary for me to support it. There is one issue with Battle_of_the_Bowling_Alley#NK_flanking_moves specifically the ending of the third para with; An intense artillery barrage began falling on the headquarters area of the 8th Field Artillery Battalion at 16:05, and 25 minutes later two direct hits destroyed the fire direction center, killing four officers and two non-commissioned officers. The individual batteries quickly took over control of the battalion fires and continued to support the infantry, while the battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company displaced under fire.[52] I think theres either a was missing or some other point thats needed to finish the statement as it leaves the reader looking for what the HQ company did. Having read the article, noting the image issues already raised and besides this point I'm happy to be tagged as supporting the article. Gnangarra 15:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the wording. I'll look for a map but I'm not sure I'll be able to find one. —Ed!(talk) 15:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Prelude: No need for two regiment links in this section.
  • A few of the North Korean divisions also appear to have repeat links.
  • Battle: Sentence fragment here: "In the meantime, the NK 3rd, 13th and 15th Divisions which were advancing south and preparing to close on Taegu." Could be fixed be just removing "which".
  • Typo in "which had been supporing the NK 13th Division".
  • I see millimeter figures given for rounds with en dashes and hyphens. I'd say the latter is what is called for here.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this not done correctly? I don't see where it is wrong. —Ed!(talk) 06:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed. See the examples at WP:HYPHEN, Ed!. I've searched the text for hyphens, and I think I got all of them. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "impressing Michaelis. Michaelis apologized to Paik...". Better not to have consecutive words like this, even with the punctuation in the middle. Perhaps the sentences could be combined to avoid this problem.
  • Aftermath: Try not to begin a sentence with a number, like in "2,300 men were killed in the fighting; 2,244 enlisted men and 56 officers." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I've corrected everything. —Ed!(talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only had a chance to copyedit the first part of this article before our 28-day A-class deadline ran. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Earwig's and Coren's tools found no copyvio. Doing some spotchecking, I saw a few problems with page numbers ("9,500" and "5,000", for example, appears on pages 259 and 263 of the Appleman source but not, as far as I can see, on page 255), but no close paraphrasing; however, I could not access all of the sources to check
  • Per WP:LEAD lead should be 3-4 paragraphs
  • A minor issue, but I'm a bit confused by your wikilinking in Sources: why is University of Nebraska linked but not University of Kansas? Why is Mason City linked both times but Washington only the first?
  • "Their attacks, which usually occurred at night and were supported by armor and artillery, advanced with infantry and tanks in close support of one another" - seems repetitive and awkward as written. There are a few other instances of awkward wording throughout the article
  • "its walled summit" - rock walls or man-made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose per poor sourcing, and potential copyvio It took me three seconds to find copied text that will be copyvio unless it can be established that "South to the Naktong, north to the Yalu: (June-November 1950) by Roy Edgar Appleman" is public domain. Do we need to search more books as well? Has this article been methodically scanned for copyvio? MILHIST A-class reviews have a very poor track record in this regard... Locke'sGhost 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked it using our two main automated tools, but those tend to miss books/journal articles. I also did some quick spotchecking, but encountered problems in accessing the source you're referring to and don't have access to several of the other sources. Can you be more specific on what you consider to be copyvio from that source, as well as the extent of the problem? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book is available online in two different formats: fulltext, and Amazon Google Books searches. Here's one direct quote: " 13:35, Michaelis reported from the Bowling Alley to Eighth Army that the NK 13th Division had blown the road to his front, had mined it, and was withdrawing" and another: "Upon receiving this information, Eighth Army immediately prepared to destroy the North Korean weapons. Fighter-bombers attacked the orchard site with napalm, and US artillery took the location under fire." If that book is not public domain (which it may be), then this nom should be withdrawn immediately. Locke'sGhost 04:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, quotes are misattributed: footnote 38 at "neither of the ROK regiments" is a lengthy and direct quote from Appleman, but attributed to Alexander. Do MILHIST A-class reviewers check these things...? Locke'sGhost 05:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for note 55, attributed to Millet 2000 p. 469, but not appearing on that page of that text, but instead a lengthy direct quote from Appleman p. 362. This is highly creative sourcing. This nom should be withdrawn, and someone should track down the various MILHIST reviewers and upbraid them. Locke'sGhost 05:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roy E. Appleman is a US Army Historian. The book is written by the US Army, for the US Army and is fully published on the Army website here. It is 100 percent public domain. As for the footnotes, the information on them is available in the books I cited them in as well as Appleman's source material. I wouldn't consider it necessary to source every sentence to Appleman though all of this info can be found in the book, in fact past reviews have seen this sort of over-citing criticized. I suppose the {{ACMH}} template could be added to the source area if necessary but there is no copyvio for a book of this nature. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu is listed as publication from Center of Military History with the serial number CMH Pub 20-2-1. I quote page 156 in Millett, Allan R. (2007), The Korean War: The Essential Bibliography, Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, ISBN 9781574889765: "The US Army's Office of the Chief of Military History's three operational-chronological volumes are: Roy Appleman, South to Naktong, North to Yalu [sic] Walter Hermes Jr., Truce Tent and Fighting Front [sic] Billy Mossman, Ebb and Flow". Although in disputes like this, it maybe more prudent to either to list {{ACMH}} or cite everything taken from South to Naktong, North to Yalu so that it would be easier for reviewers to fact check the materials for the review process. I added {{ACMH}} template in the article as stop gap measure. Jim101 (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a "stop gap measure"; if these are PD sources, why aren't the exact quotes in quotations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing check

Background section: no problem I can see

Prelude section:

  • At 12:00 the next day, August 17, Eighth Army ordered the 27th Infantry to move its headquarters and a reinforced battalion "without delay" to a point across the Kumho River 3 miles (4.8 km) north of Taegu on the road from Tabu-dong to Sangju "to secure Taegu from enemy penetration" from that direction.[25] Although Millett 2000, p. 464 stated the same idea, this quote is directly taken from Appleman 1998 p. 353
  • The 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry, a platoon of the Heavy Mortar Company, and most of the 8th Field Artillery Battalion moved north to Ch'ilgok where the ROK 1st Division command post was located.[25] Same problem as above, except this time Millett 2000, p. 464 did not identified 27th Infantry's sub units nor mentioning locations such as Ch'ilgok and the ROK 1st Division command post.
  • the North Korean 13th Division, with 9,500 men,[1] Wrong page number, it should be Appleman 1998 p. 265, not 255
  • had forced South Korean troops into the Tabu-dong corridor and started advancing on Taegu.[27] This sentence is a combination of ideas taken from Appleman 1998 p. 354 and Paik 1992 p. 36, although only Paik 1992 p. 36 was cited
  • NK 15th Division with 5,000 men[1] Wrong page number, it should be Appleman 1998 p. 265, not 255
  • To the west of the NK 13th Division, the NK 15th Division with 5,000 men[1] was also deployed on Yuhak-san.[29] It, too, had begun battling the ROK 1st Division, but thus far only in minor engagements. The North Korean High Command then ordered the NK 15th Division to move from its position northwest of Tabu-dong eastward, to the Yongch'on front, where the NK 8th Division had tried and failed to advance to the Taegu lateral corridor. The NK 15th Division left the Yuhak-san area on August 20. Meanwhile, the NK 1st Division, to the east of the 13th, advanced to the Kunwi area, 25 miles (40 km) north of Taegu. The North Korean command ordered it to proceed to the Tabu-dong area and maneuver astride the 13th Division for the attack on Taegu down the Tabu-dong corridor. At the same time, the North Koreans received their only substantial tank reinforcements during the Pusan Perimeter fighting.[25] On August 15, the NK 105th Armored Division received 21 new T-34 tanks and 200 troop replacements, which it distributed to the divisions attacking Taegu. The tank regiment with the NK 13th Division reportedly had 14 T-34 tanks.[2][26] Most of the paragraph is lifted from Appleman 1998 p. 354, but there is only one citation for it. Furthermore, Millett 2000, p. 464 (citation 25) did not talk about the issue of reinforcements
  • On August 18, the NK 13th Division was astride the Sangju–Taegu road just above Tabu-dong and only 13 miles (21 km) from Taegu. The Eighth Army ordered the 27th Infantry Regiment to attack north along the road to counter the threat.[2] Although Millett 2010, p. 221 supported this fact, this sentence is lifted from Appleman 1998, p. 354
  • In front of the 27th Infantry position, the poplar-lined Taegu–Sangju road ran northward in the narrow mountain valley. A stream on the west closely paralleled the road, which was nearly straight on a north-south axis through the 27th Infantry position and for some distance northward. This stretch of the road later became known as the "Bowling Alley."[31] Citation should be changed from Appleman 1998, p. 356 to Appleman 1998, pp. 355–356 given that this passage is lifted from both page 355 and 356.

Battle Section

  • The ROK 1st Infantry Division, with 7,500 men[32] I can't exactly found the source for that number. The citation provided (Paik 1992, p. 28) states "about seven thousand soldiers". But in Appleman 1998, p. 191 it states 7,601.
  • had held the line around the Bowling Alley since August 12.[28] I cannot find the August 12 date in Paik 1992, p. 34, although in Millett 2000, p. 438 it states that the ROK Army Headquarter adjusted the entire ROKA line on August 11.
  • with ROK 1st Division's 11th, 12th, and 13th regiments committed against the NK 13th Division's 19th, 21st and 23rd regiments.[35] I cannot find a source that explicitly identify 19th, 21st and 23rd regiments. Also, the citation should be change from Paik 1992, p. 39 to Paik 1992, pp. 37–38, since only those two pages described how 11th, 12th, and 13th regiments were committed.
  • The fight became a battle of attrition.[36] I may be nitpicky here but none of the sources used the word "attrition". Are there sources that explicitly stated that North Koreans intended to bleed the entire ROK 1st Division to death in this battle, or did the North Koreans concentrated their forces in a specific point for penetrations? If it is the first case, then it is a battle of attrition, if it is the second, then it is not exactly clear since the attack will be carried out with flanking and encirclements in mind.
  • US infantry advance section: it maybe less confusing to reviewers about where you get the material for the section if you remove citation 38 and 39, since those two citation only indirectly support the statements and the entire material is lifted from Appleman 1998, p. 355
  • The first of seven successive North Korean night attacks struck against the 27th Infantry defensive perimeter shortly after dark that night, August 18.[2][40] Although Millett 2010, p. 221 and Paik 1992, p. 41 implied that the first attack occurred on August 18, only in Appleman 1998, p. 356 used the exact sentence.
  • On the morning of August 19, the ROK 11th and 13th Regiments launched counterattacks along the ridges with some gains, however the fight continued to produce heavy casualties for both sides.[40] Half of the sentence is lifted from Appleman 1998, p. 357, half of the sentence is a summery on Paik 1992, p. 41, but only Paik was cited.
  • Walker ordered another reserve unit, a battalion of the ROK 10th Regiment, to the Taegu front to close a gap between the ROK 1st and 6th Divisions.[43] Inaccurate page number, it should be Appleman 1998, pp. 357–358, not just 358
  • Then the NK 13th Division launched a major attack against the entire UN front in and around the valley.[48] This sentence appears to be a close paraphrase to the sentence "Then the N.K. 13th Division launched a major attack against the ROK units on the high ground and the Americans in the valley." in Appleman 1998, p. 359. The Millett 2000, p. 467 citation only states "a large scale attack directed against the US 27th Regiment"
  • During the night battle, North Korean forces infiltrated along the high ridge line around the east flank of the 27th Infantry and appeared the next day at about 12:00 6 miles (9.7 km) in the rear of that regiment and only 9 miles (14 km) from Taegu. This force was a regiment of the NK 1st Division, and was 1,500 men strong. The regiment had just arrived from the Kunwi area to join in the battle for Taegu.[49] Alexander 2003, p. 147 cited here only stated there was an infiltration, and only in Appleman 1998, p. 360 did it state the details of the infiltration such as unit, approximate time and strength. Furthermore in Appleman 1998, p. 360 it states only 1,000 infiltrators and I cannot find any reference to the time 12:00.
  • and in the argument, Eighth Army Korean Military Advisory Group advisers visited each ROK unit to ensure they were remaining in position.[50] Inaccurate page number, it should be Appleman 1998, pp. 360–361, not just 360
  • Later, Michaelis apologized to Paik though their relationship for the remainder of the battle remained strained.[2] Millett 2010, p. 221 states the relationship got off in a bad start, but he did not state that the relationship remained strained after Michaelis apologized to Paik.
  • The afternoon of August 22, US 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry, guarding the support artillery behind the 27th Infantry, came under attack by the NK 1st Division troops that had passed around the forward positions.[49] Although Alexander 2003, p. 147 confirms the fact that an unspecified US battalion was attack by an unspecified North Korean unit, it may be a good idea to remove the citation here in order reduce confusion on the source of this statement, since most of the sentence is lifted Appleman 1998, p. 361
  • Chong, the highest ranking North Korean prisoner of war thus far in the war, gave precise information on the location of his artillery.[48] The fact that he is is the highest ranking NK POW is only found in Appleman 1998, p. 361. IMO it need to be cited at the end of the sentence.
  • With the North Koreans turned back north of Taegu, Walker issued orders for the 27th Infantry to leave the Bowling Alley and return to the 25th Division in the Masan area.[55] The citation (Millett 2000, p. 469) did not mention any facts from this sentence. This sentence is lifted from Appleman 1998, pp. 362–363.

Aftermath Section

  • The division withdrew to rebuild.[2] Although I understood the fact that this division came back to the fight after China intervened, I still think it need a citation that support the fact that it immediately went to rebuilt phase as the result of this battle. So far all of the sources cited here merely say that the unit got knocked-out without ruling out the possibility that it could be temporary disbanded or became inactive.
  • US losses during the battle were extremely light; unusual for fighting at a time in which other UN offensive forces were paying a heavy price when making similar pushes against the North Korean troops.[58] Wrong page number, it should be Ecker 2004, p. 30, not page 29.

I hope this summery can shine some light on the "creative sourcing" issue.

Jim101 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striking Oppose. The whole damn article – literally entire sections – is simply copy/pasted from a PD source, then other sources are used to supply cites that corroborate the copy/paste job.... It is a shame there is no rule that says that such work is ineligible for FA. Good luck with your nom; I wouldn't tout this one on my user page though. No work involved. Locke'sGhost 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Great story. Prose needs tweaking.

  • What's happening with the comment above? Hard to believe.
    • Nothing is happening with the comment above. The reason the prose has some sweet spots and rougher patches is because the former are wholesale copy/pasted sections. However, I am unaware of any language in WP:WIAFA which precludes this practice. PD is PD and thus is fair game. Locke'sGhost 08:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Republic of Korea Army's (ROK) 1st Division along the latter's last defensible line"—will you consider "and the Republic of Korea Army's (ROK) 1st Division along the ROK's last defensible line"?
  • Close repetition of "one another" in the lead.
  • "pushed back ... pushing back".
  • I enlarged, righted, and relocated the first b/w image. I do think images are best with (all) syntaxes jammed up at the top of each section: remember to test window widths to see how readers see it via their appallingly disparate range of widths. I don't suppose that image could be reloaded a bit brighter, could it? ... oh, maybe not. Undecided.
  • "The US formations were subsequently able to defeat the North Koreans"—why not "The US formations subsequently defeated the North Koreans", since there's no particular theme about the capacity/challenges/weakness of the US forces in that paragraph.
  • "This granted both sides a reprieve to prepare for the attack on the Pusan Perimeter."—Query "granted" rather than the plainer "gave".
  • "Taegu" first para: a little disorganised thematically. Could we know that Taegu was "a transportation hub and the last major South Korean city aside from Pusan itself to remain in UN hands" when it's first mentioned, and "defended by the US 1st ...."? Then perhaps the topographical/geographical information. Then "The 1st c d was spread out ...". Could that be made to work?
  • I enlarged the map: you really need to refer to its tiny details when reading parts of the text. I centred and enlarged the Bowling Alley double image. I do wish editors would use the large centering option. Tony (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Locke'sGhost: While there is not policy against having PD text in featured articles, the text still has to meet criterion 1a. So, opposition based on the PD text not meeting 1a would be valid and actionable. --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per criteria 1a, 1b and 1c ... or rather, per the impossibility of evaluating 1a, 1b and 1c when the footnotes (still) don't accurately represent where the material came from. For all I know, I'm partly to blame that the nominator prefers copying public domain text, if I wasn't patient enough regarding this nominator's prose in several A-class reviews. I also can't blame the nominator's judgment if "past reviews have seen this sort of over-citing criticized"; the process doesn't work if you can't trust the consensus of reviewers (and I really need to know who said that and have a talk with them). - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_the_Bowling_Alley/archive1&oldid=1136098677"