Talk:Battle of Pyongtaek/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "is seen as a poor showing for American forces," - by whom? I'd also think about rephrasing the "poor showing" part as it does not sound particularly encyclopedic.
 * ✅ "the regiment's 1st Battalion was outmaneuvered and forced to retreat at Pyongtaek. The battalion was forced to retreat without significantly delaying the North Koreans" - you repeat yourself here. I suggest eliminating the " The battalion was forced to retreat" and merging the rest of that sentance with the one before it.
 * ✅ "completely by surprise, resulting in a complete rout" - repetition of "complete"
 * ✅ "Most of South Korea's forces retreated in the face of the invasion . . . forces to retreat south" - repetition of "retreat"
 * ✅ "collapsing country. US President Harry S. Truman subsequently ordered ground troops into the country" - repetition of "country"
 * "had been steadily decreasing since the end" - in numbers?
 * ✅ "Regardless, the 24th Infantry Division" - instead of regardless, try "in spite of these deficiencies"
 * ✅ "From the division" - since this is a new section, you should name the division again.
 * ✅ "was unprepared for a fight, it was poorly trained" - insteasd of the comma, use a colon or an "as"


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * I believe all of your concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your review. — Ed! (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The first issue in the list has not yet been addressed - did you have an objection to it?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I have fixed it. How does it look now? — Ed! (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I have fixed it. How does it look now? — Ed! (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is now ready to pass, congratulations. I apologise that the process took so long - honestly, I probably shouldn't have started the review as I am in the middle of a major project in RL and haven't been able to spend much time on WP. In any case, well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just remembered one more thing, can you link and give the full title for General Dean when he first appears? Otherwise it is a nice article. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)