Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Sangju (1950)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sangju (1950)

edit
Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I reviewed this for GA yesterday and believe that it also meets the A-class criteria. I have the following comments for the sake of the review:
    • there are no dabs, ext links work and all images have alt text (no action required);
    • my only suggestion is that you might consider getting someone outside the project to go over the article for jargon and to do a copy edit as, to be honest, my copy editing skills are not that great and as an insider my ability to identify jargon is limited. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I read the whole thing and didn't see anything that I thought needed to be changed. --Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Comments - Had the whole review typed out, and then the computer erased it. Oh well...[reply]
    • File:US Retreat from Taejon.jpg, File:24th Infantry in Korea.jpg and File:24th Infantry in Korea.jpg are not under acceptable licenses on Flickr (they have no commercial use licenses).
      • Both images are licensed under Creative Commons here. They're both works taken by US Army photographers and are distributed by a US Army account, so both are in public domain. I'm not sure how else to fix it, but both checked out in previous ACRs and one in This FAC. —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, but that is a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license. NonCommercial, No Deriv licenses are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Just because something has a creative commons license doesn't mean that it has a license that allows it to be on our "Commons". I know that most US Army photos are completely in the public domain (commercial use and derivatives are allowed) - so is the Flickr account wrong? This might be something to ask an image specialist about (Jappalang is the guy I go to when I have an image question). Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Outbreak of war, "buy time to allow follow on forces to arrive." Follow on forces?
    • North Korean attack on Sangju, "However the withdraw had been a part of the plan for reorganizing" First, this is ungrammatical. Second, it was part of the plan but they didn't communicate their intentions? How could the US not know their intentions if it was part of the plan? Or was this just a plan among the Koreans, which the US wasn't party to?
    • US consolidates around Sangju, "35th Infantry came to grief north". First, "came to grief" in unencyclopedic. Second, it doesn't really sound like they came to grief. Despite being outnumbered and having their supply line cut off, they were able to inflict heavy losses and disengage. Unless something else happened that isn't described here, this isn't a lot of grief.
    • The 24th infantry falters, "These positions were twice the length prescribed to a US Army regiment," Was it their idea to spread out this far, or were they ordered to?
    • Same section, "got out of hand." Again, unencyclopedic language.
    • Same section, "a panic arose among the men and the majority of the battalion left its positions." Why did they panic?
    • Same section, "He had to reorganize the battalion himself" Is this significant? Was a colonel not supposed to reorganize a battalion?
    • Same section, "part of it direct fire" As opposed to indirect fire? What is special about it being direct fire?
    • US withdrawal, "stopped every vehicle coming from the west, taking off stragglers." How did he know they were stragglers?
    • Same section, "He averaged about 75 stragglers a day and, on the last day, he collected 150." So he was there for two days? Then just say so.
      • Clarified. He caught 150 men on the last day alone. The rest of the days he collected 75 men a day. —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • For some reason I was kept reading that as "by the last day" instead of "on the last day". Oops. Well, the rewording looks better anyways.
    • Same section, "plagued by stragglers" You keep calling them stragglers, which implies they are men moving (and falling) behind a main group. Instead, if I'm reading the article right, they were men deliberately moving away from the main group. This makes them not stragglers.
      • My sources consistently use the term. They weren't deserters since they weren't trying to escape the military, but they weren't mutineers since they weren't trying to overthrow their officers. They were simply running away without orders whenever the North Koreans shot at them. Is there a better word? —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably, but I can't think of one at the moment, so I guess it'll have to stay as it is.
    • Same section, "senior commanders had to personally move in to help resist the Korean advance." Did senior commanders not go to the front often? How did they help? Did the give pep talks? Or actually help in the fighting?
    • Same section, "placed it in blocking positions behind the 24th Infantry" Blocking what? The advance of the Koreans or the retreat of the Americans?
    • Same section, "After regimental commanders pleaded unsuccessfully with him to return to his position, he was arrested and tried for desertion under fire, a capital offense." Since the last person you were talking was the senior noncom, this sounds like it was him that was arrested. I think, however, that you are talking about the 1st Lt.
    • Aftermath, "The 24th Infantry was fully desegregated on October 1, 1951." What do you mean by fully desegregated? What is the criteria? Half whites and half blacks?
      • Basically. As of this battle the regiment was "officially" desegregated, but 95 percent of its men were black. —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't really like the way this is worded, but it's more of a style thing, I guess.
    • Same section, "white officers unable to assert their authority" What do you mean by unable to assert their authority? They couldn't? Wouldn't? Didn't know they had it?
  • This article starts out well, but falls apart a bit at the end. Some jargon, unencyclopedic language, and lack of clarity and detail plague the end of the Battle section and the Aftermath section. Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (edited 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Sangju_(1950)&oldid=1136064788"