Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Masan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBattle of Masan has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed
September 20, 2011Good topic candidateNot promoted
November 26, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Current status: Good article

Commentary

[edit]

A good article, definitely B-class. Here are some comments, mostly minor and easily fixed:

Like I said, mostly minor stuff. The subject is treated well in an appropriate amount of detail, and due regard is given to the actions of individual units that isn't seen often enough in historical texts. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Masan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

OK, I will review this article over the next couple of days.

Check list

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]
  • Lead&Infobox:
    • Consistency. Are the belligerents UN or US and South Korea?
      • Depends on the context. Politically, South Korea was not a part of the UN in 1950, so South Korea and the US had a joint military venture in the battle, per the infobox. But the South Korean troops fell under the United Nations command, per the text. —Ed!(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Casualties. Don't add up with the Aftermath section. I count 1057 killed, 3085 wounded and 20 captured or missing. No South Korean casualties given.
  • Battle
    • The part on North Korean conscription of South Korean civilians deserves a subsection. Possibly add a couple of sentences on their loyalty, combat value and desertions, possibly comparing these problems to similar problems for the 24th Infantry.
    • T-34 picture. Perhaps change the caption to "T-34 tanks like this one..."
    • A map (or even a simple schematic) would help. I do not know Korean geography very well and the battle is difficult to follow for an average reader, who would not read the entire article in detail.

Reviewer: D2306 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

[edit]

I think this is a good article. The only comment is again on South Korea losses. Probably a quick mentions that some of the 40,000 casualties of the Battle of Pusan occurred there.D2306 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]