 | Battle of Hwanggan 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Hwanggan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking forward to another in this series of Korean War articles; should get to it this w/e... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Technical
- Chongju is a dab link that needs to be fixed.
- No external link probs.
Lead
- I think you need to expand the second (or third) para(s) of the lead to mention the circumstances of the US withdrawal that gave the North Koreans their victory. As written it seems to be concentrating on the positives for the 27th and one almost gets the impression that the first para is wrong and it was actually counted as a US victory.
Battle
- In the meantime, the NK 2nd Division, arriving in Taejon too late for the fight there, continued its advance down the Poun-Hwanggan road. -- "In the meantime" isn't a great way to start a brand new section, suggest we drop it. Also, by "too late for the fight there" do you mean too late for the Battle of Yongdong? If so, I'd spell it out (or whatever action if does refer to).
Aftermath
- Again, I'm not sure we've spelt out clearly enough why it's considered an NK victory when the Americans performed so well -- perhaps you can say something like "although the North Koreans achieved a victory through finally taking the ground, the 27th performed well by delaying the NK advance for 5 days..." or something like that. Nothing radical needed, just clarification.
Generally prose, coverage, referencing, structure, and images all appear fine. If you can just address the above points I'll be happy to pass. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed everything. Thanks for another review! —Ed!(talk) 03:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, sorry I took a bit longer to get to it than I indicated... Anyway, passing as GA -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed everything. Thanks for another review! —Ed!(talk) 03:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)