Talk:No Gun Ri massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 01:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening statement

I would like to be thorough, so this review process could take me 1-2 weeks, as I will want to check and read most sources, given the nature of the topic. I will start with a copy-edit pass, and then will try to get the other points out of the way before I dive into the sources, so that some progress will be apparent. Thank you!

Comments

This article is well written, thorough, and appears to be extremely well-researched. I will first suggest numerous copy-edits; most of these are suggestions, and would not prevent the article from being passed as GA, but I think the article could benefit from a few of these edits. I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I say "please add" or the like.

Copy-edit comments (with signature and date/time stamp for easier tracking, as this review will be done in phases): --Concertmusic (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Overall CE comment: I would add quite a few commas all across the article. If you'd like, I can do that directly into the article, just leave it alone, or advise you of each comma for your own action - please advise. Some additional commas are necessary to break up run-on sentences.
• Overall CE comment: You'll see a number of suggestions to add the word "that" in places. To clarify: "that" is used inconsistently throughout the article, and I decided to point out where to add the word, as opposed to where to delete it, if consistency is a goal. I think adding it clarifies many of these sentences, but I am ok with a decision either way.

• CE: In the Lead, first paragraph, first sentence, this phrase reads poorly, and could benefit from a noun: Original sentence fragment = "...were killed by a U.S. air attack and the 2nd Battalion, 7th U.S. Cavalry, at a railroad bridge..."; suggested fragment with underlined addition = "...were killed by a U.S. air attack and the actions of the 2nd Battalion, 7th U.S. Cavalry, at a railroad bridge...". If you'd rather leave it as is, I am ok with that decision.
• CE: In the Lead, last paragraph, next-to-last sentence, I would add "the" as indicated: "American historian Sahr Conway-Lanz reported that among the undisclosed documents was a letter from the U.S. ambassador in South Korea..."
• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", first paragraph, first sentence, I would restructure to put the date first, as seen here: "On July 25, as North Korean forces seized the town of Yongdong,..."
• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", first paragraph, 3rd sentence, I would change "in the night": Original sentence: "Seven refugees were killed by U.S. soldiers when they strayed from the group in the night." - Suggestion 1: "Seven refugees were killed overnight by U.S. soldiers", or Suggestion 2: "Seven refugees were killed by U.S. soldiers when they strayed from the group during the night."
• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", first paragraph, 4th sentence, I would add "that": "In the morning of July 26, the villagers found that the escorting soldiers had left."
• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", first paragraph, mid-paragraph, I would add "that": "Recalling the air strike, Yang Hae-chan, a 10-year-old boy in 1950, said that the attacking planes returned repeatedly..."

• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", first paragraph, mid-paragraph, I would add "that": "He and another survivor said that soldiers reappeared..."

• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "Larry Levine and James Crume, said that they remembered orders to fire"

• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", last paragraph, 2nd sentence, please add "the": "two miles or more from No Gun Ri late on July 28, the third day of the massacre."

• CE: In "Petitions", first paragraph, 2nd sentence, I would add "that": "Survivor Yang Hae-chan said that he was warned by South Korean police..."
• CE: In "Petitions", last paragraph, last sentence, I would add "that": "In March 1999, the Army told the U.S. council that it had looked into the No Gun Ri allegations..."
• Citation: In "U.S. Report", last paragraph, last sentence:I would eliminate the parentheses, as that sentence does not need them; but regardless, please add a reference to that fact - which could be the same reference as Reference #40. The number 218 is split into its component pieces up above, so the connection between the individual numbers (150 No Gun Ri dead, 13 missing and 55 wounded) and this total of 218 is not easily made: "(Four years after this 2001 report, the Seoul government's inquest committee certified the identities of a minimum 218 casualties.)"
• CE: In "South Korean report", 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "The South Korean report said five former Air Force pilots told U.S. interrogators that they were directed to strafe civilians..."

• CE: In "South Korean report", last paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "...drawing on accounts from survivors and area residents, said that at least 62 bodies had been taken..."

• CE: In "Clinton statement, U.S. offer", next-to-last sentence, please add the word "a": "Instead, the U.S. offered a $4 million plan for a memorial at No Gun Ri and a scholarship fund."

• CE: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", 2nd paragraph, last sentence, I would add "that" twice: "...expressed sympathy with the hard-pressed U.S. troops of 1950 but said that the killings were unjustified and that "the American command was responsible for the loss..."

• CE: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, I would add "that": "News reports pointed out that the U.S. review, in describing the July 1950 Air Force memo, did not acknowledge that it said refugees were being strafed at the Army's request."

• CE: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", 3rd paragraph, next-to-last sentence, I would add "that": "The report did not address the commanders' July 26–27, 1950, instructions in the 25th Infantry Division saying that civilians in the war zone would be considered unfriendly and shot."

• CE: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", 4th paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "After the Army issued its report, it was learned that it also had not disclosed its researchers' discovery of..."

• CE: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", last paragraph, last sentence, I would add "that": "Pressed by the South Korean government, the Pentagon eventually acknowledged that it deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 report."
• CE: In the caption for the document on the left in "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", I would add "that": "In this excerpt from a July 25, 1950, memo, the U.S. Air Force operations chief in Korea, Col. Turner C. Rogers, reports that U.S. aircraft are strafing South Korean refugees"

• CE: In the caption for the document on the right in "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", I would add "that": "The letter, dated July 26, the day that the Army's 7th Cavalry Regiment began shooting refugees at No Gun Ri..."
• Clarification request: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", last paragraph, next-to-last sentence, and in the caption for the document on the right in "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", you write "despite warning shots" twice. I don't think you mean "despite", but something along the lines of "after warning shots" or "after delivering warning shots". Please clarify.

• CE: In "Law of war and No Gun Ri", 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, please add the word "statement" or something like it - without the noun the sentence is incomplete: "American lawyers for the No Gun Ri survivors rejected that statement, saying that whether 7th Cavalry..."

• CE: In "Law of war and No Gun Ri", 1st paragraph, last sentence, I would add "that": "...the lawyers also pointed out that numerous orders were issued at the war front to shoot civilians, and said that the U.S. military's self-investigation"

• CE: In "Law of war and No Gun Ri", 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "...cited six South Korean legal studies as saying that No Gun Ri constituted a crime against humanity."

• CE: In "Law of war and No Gun Ri", last paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "American experts in military law agreed that the 1950 events violated the laws of war prohibiting targeting of noncombatants, but said that prosecuting ex-soldiers a half-century later was a practical impossibility."

• CE: In "Law of war and No Gun Ri", last paragraph, last sentence, I would add "that": "Nevertheless, Army Secretary Caldera said early in the investigation that he couldn't rule out prosecutions, a statement that survivors later complained deterred some 7th Cavalry veterans from testifying."

• CE: In "Graves, memorial park", 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence, I would add "that": "The forensics team said that it hadn't found more because so much time had passed..."
• CE: In "Truth and Reconciliation Commission", first paragraph, first sentence, please change the phrasing of "mostly air attacks" - suggestion here: "The 1999 No Gun Ri articles prompted hundreds of South Koreans to come forward to report other alleged incidents of large-scale civilian killings by the U.S. military in 1950–1951, mostly in the form of air attacks."

• CE: In "Truth and Reconciliation Commission", first paragraph, 2nd sentence, please add "allegations" or "claims" - "these" by itself is incomplete: "In 2005, the National Assembly created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the Republic of Korea to investigate these allegations,"

I plan on tackling images, and possibly start on sources, tomorrow, time permitting.

Images have been checked, and past controversies have been reviewed. Source review will be next, and will almost certainly go into next week: --Concertmusic (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments on sources/references: --Concertmusic (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is incredibly well researched, and is supported by a wide variety of sources, many of which are not readily accessible online without access to university library resources. This appears to show that the authors have gone to some trouble to consult and use resources that are credible and authoritative, in some cases using sources from peer-reviewed scholastic journals. My goal is to have viewed and read the majority of the sources provided in this article. My comments below are again more in the way of suggestions, rather than items that would prevent this article from being rated as GA, as the GA guidelines are met as the article currently stands.

• Reference 12: This reference is placed at the end of this sentence: "The AP later discovered additional archival documents showing U.S. commanders had ordered troops to "shoot" and "fire on" civilians at the war front during this period; these declassified documents had been found but not disclosed by the Pentagon investigators." The referenced material appears to support the first part of the sentence only, up to the semi-colon, but appears to make no mention of the 2nd part of the sentence. I would recommend moving the reference to be placed after the semi-colon. If a separate reference is available for the 2nd part of the sentence, please add after the period.
• Reference 17: This reference is placed at the end of this sentence: "The combined U.S. and South Korean forces were initially unable to stop the North Korean advance, and continued to retreat throughout July." The referenced material appears to support the first part of the sentence only, up to the comma, but appears to make no direct mention of the 2nd part of the sentence. I would recommend moving the reference to be placed after the comma. If a separate reference is available for the 2nd part of the sentence, please add after the period.
• The following sentence is referenced by Reference 16 and 18: "With gaps in their lines, U.S. forces were attacked from the rear, and reports spread that disguised North Korean soldiers were infiltrating refugee columns." I would recommend to move Reference 16 to be located after the 2nd comma in the middle of the sentence, as that reference supports only that first part of the sentence about gaps in the U.S. lines, and to keep Reference 18 after the period.
• Reference 38: This reference is used for the following sentence: "The survivors generally put the death toll at 400, including 100 in the initial air attack, with scores more wounded." The referenced material appears to make no mention of an air strike, but does support the figure of 400. I would recommend to use Reference 38 for the first part before the first comma, and to use one of the other previously used references for the air strike piece, or leave that unreferenced.
• In "Associated Press story", you quote: ""We just annihilated them," it quoted former 7th Cavalry machine gunner Norman Tinkler as saying." This direct quote appears to have no reference, but should have one, per GA criteria 2b.
• Reference 82: Used at the end of the following sentence: "Nevertheless, Army Secretary Caldera said early in the investigation that he couldn't rule out prosecutions, a statement survivors later complained deterred some 7th Cavalry veterans from testifying." The reference appear to support the first part of the sentence only, and I would therefore move this reference to after the 2nd comma in this sentence.

As far as I am concerned, my active part of this GA review is concluded, and I will now await the reaction of the nominator and/or authors to my comments, before I pass this article. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary

Cjhanley, GeneralizationsAreBad: After very quick and thorough responses by Cjhanley, all suggestions and items above have been taken care, and this article easily passes this GA review. Thank you, and great work! --Concertmusic (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   This article is meticulously researched, and contains reference after reference to a wide variety of material, with most of these sources being verifiable and reliable. The sources that were not directly accessed and checked by me were either available only in print, or were in Korean, which I do not read. The number of sources that fall into this category were well under 10% of the total. There is one single direct quote left that needs to be quoted, as seen in the "Comments on sources/references" above, to pass the GA criteria.

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article treats the various controversies and disputes by reporting them, as opposed to trying to convince the reader of one opinion or another. I find it to be neutral in tone and language. I will double-check on the fairness of the representation as I read the sources.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   I have read this - FYI. The article has been stable since mid-August 2015.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Cjhanley reaction-1

Concertmusic, I agree with all your copy-editing suggestions, including the one tagged “Citation,” where the use of Reference #40, as you suggest, would be appropriate.

I have one suggestion, related to the first “CE: In ‘Law of war and No Gun Ri’” item: Rather than adding the word “statement,” perhaps “rationale” more precisely describes what the lawyers objected to.

Now, Concertmusic, will you be able to do those edits, including insertion of commas as you see fit?

Meantime, let me work on implementing your “Comments on sources/references,” since I have the sources. Yours all look like on-target points. But a counterpoint or two might arise as I get down to the nitty-gritty of rereading the sources, in which case I’ll post here any counter-suggestion.

FYI, I am dealing with a family situation that might, in the next day or two, pull me away for several days. But I'd return to the sources task as soon as possible.

Thanks very much again for the fine detailed work on this. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: To avoid any editing conflict, I will await Concertmusic's completing the copy-editing work before I tackle improving the sourcing. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Cjhanley, GeneralizationsAreBad: My first reaction to cjhanley's request above was to check whether there is any conflict of interest, or specific rule, about a reviewer making suggested edits to an article under review - and I don't believe there is, based on my reading of the GA guidelines and other articles. If there is an issue with me making those changes, as discussed above, please jump in here. I likely won't have time to start until tomorrow in any case, which will hopefully permit enough time for anyone who may read this, and who may object to a reviewer making changes, to provide their input. Unless I find objections, I will plan on doing these edits starting on Monday.

In addition, the sources provided more than meet the GA criteria, and if there are any counterpoints encountered during the source review process, please do what you think is best, without worry of impact to the GA review. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made the suggested edits, found above under Comments, as requested, and have checked the item to do with prose and grammar for the GA review. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Cjhanley, GeneralizationsAreBad: I neglected to ping the review participants - please see the No Gun Ri Massacre/GA1 talk page for further updates. --Concertmusic (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Cjhanley reaction-2

I have modified and added to the references per Concertmusic's suggestions, with one exception.

Regarding the item "In 'Associated Press story', you quote...", which suggests a need for sourcing the Tinkler quote: Sentences 3 through 8 in that paragraph all hang on footnote No. 2 ("AP Original") at the end of sentence 8. Those sentences begin by introducing the original AP story and then say, in effect, here's what the story says, including the Tinkler quote ("... it quoted former 7th Cavalry machine gunner Norman Tinkler as saying.") After six sentences, there's that single cite, to the Sept. 29, 1999, AP story. Hence, I've left that as is.

This relates to your last undecided rating, 2B reliable sources.

Thanks very much again for your great help on this. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)