Talk:Battle of Pakchon/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably review this over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments
This is a nicely written and highly detailed article which meets the GA criteria. Accordingly, my comments are pretty limited:
 * "Encountering only one strong North Korean position which they quickly turned" - 'turned' is probably a bit too technical - 'outflanked' perhaps?
 * It would be interesting to know more about Walsh's background; it seems surprising that the commander of one of Australia's three regular infantry battalions lacked experience commanding infantry so soon after World War II, when there were dozens of experienced battalion commanders potentially available.
 * "given the potential to mask infiltration of their positions." - 'mask' is probably also a bit too technical
 * 'offensive support' might also be too technical
 * More information on the experiences of the Chinese forces in this battle would be useful, if this is available (which I suspect it isn't; while this engagement was a big deal for the Commonwealth forces, it was a pretty minor affair for the Chinese at this stage of the war)
 * Cheers for these comments. I'll look for a bit more on Walsh and see if I can incorporate it into the article. I pinged User:Jim101 for any additional Chinese content but unfortunately it doesn't appear that any more is available. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment against the GA criteria
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks Nick. Your time is appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)