Talk:Battle of Tabu-dong

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Tabu-dong article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Battle of Tabu-dong 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
Date	Process	Result
February 20, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Military history: Asian / Korean / North America / United States / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Korean military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Korea High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated working groups:
/
	This article is supported by the Korean military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time Format comment

Time Format

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article looks great, but I have a question about date and time. If you look at the 3rd paragraph, in the section Battle of Tabu-dong#Further US Withdrawal, the time "03:00" is mentioned, and somewhere nearby is "08:00". This is a mixture of civilian and military time formats. Shouldn't it be one or the other? 3:00, 3:00am, or 3pm, if its civilian format, 0300 or 1500 if it's military time. If you go with military time, then for the sake of consistency, dates should likewise probably be put in military format as well; (23 September 1950, not September 23, 1950). Something of a quibble, I admit, but had to throw it out there for consideration. Does the MilHistoryProject have any guidelines on this? Over. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Reviewer: NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Generally good prose. A couple instances of awkward speech, fixed those.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Battery of well formatted reliable sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Very excellent work here again.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Cropped one of the maps
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Well written article. Unequivocally passes GA criteria, but additional images, and improvement of prose would be required for FA. Also think expansion would be required.

Add topic