Talk:Battle of Chonan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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

1. In the background, I would like to see a few words about what the 24th Infantry Division was doing in Japan in 1950, which the reader may not know. It should also explain that it was stationed in Kyushu, and was therefore the closest of the four divisions there to Korea. can you say a bit more about just how under strength it was?
   1. Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
2. I think the North Korean superiority was not just in numbers, but in training and weaponry as well. This should be explained.
   1. Added in the graph about the NK 4th Division. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
3. The article should also explain why the Americans were unable to stop North Korean Armor
   1. Done. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
4. "while the remainder of the division could be" could be -> was
   1. Done. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
5. "The Pyongtaek-Ansong line was unable to delay the North Korean force" It's just a line on the map. Re-phrase.
   1. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
6. "Also at the town were elements of the 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry, the elements that had not made up Task Force Smith at the Battle of Osan." Suggest: "Also at the town were elements of the 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry that had not made up Task Force Smith at the Battle of Osan."
   1. Done. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
7. "Brigadier General George B. Barth, 24th Infantry Division's artillery commander, ordered the 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry to hold positions 2 miles (3.2 km) south of town before departing for Taejon." Who was departing for Taejon: the general or the battalion?
   1. Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
8. "1st Battalion, 34th Infantry was sent to join it." 1st -> The 1st
   1. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
9. "Major General Dean, commander of the 24th Infantry Division, telegraphed the command from Taejon," are you sure he sent a telegram? This was unusual in 1950, as telephones, telexes and radios were in common use.
   1. The source specifically used the word "telegraphed." —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
10. "This left 1st and 3rd Battalions alone in Chonan." Are these from the 21st or 34th Infantry?
    1. Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
11. "At around 1300, L Company" Which battalion is L Company part of?
    1. Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
12. "Throughout the evening of July 7, North Korean pressure began developing" began developing -> developed
    1. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
13. "shells from the 63rd Field Artillery Battalion," What kind of guns did it have?
    1. Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
14. "63rd Field Artillery continued" can we keep the word "Battalion" consistently, as this form is reserved for regiments.
    1. Done. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
15. "General Dean arrived south of the town with General Walton Walker" Walker was only a lieutenant general at the time.
    1. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
16. Ambiguous link on "posthumous"
    1. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
17. Alt text on General Dean: omit "in his late fifties"
    1. Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I have responded to all of your concerns. —Ed!^(talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)