Talk:Battle of Sangju (1950)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be looking at this over the next couple of days. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded to all of your comments. Thanks for the review! — Ed! (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Initial comments
This a very good article. I have the following comments/suggestions for improvement as part of my GA review. Some of these are a bit beyond the criteria, but I won't hold these against the article's GA status: 1st Lt William Dubois Ware earned a Distinguished Service Cross for his actions on 26 July, 1950. He was with Company I, 3rd Battalion, 24th infantry Regiment. An African American, he is listed as MIA on 27 July, 1950.The following earned Silver Stars for their actions at Sangju: 1st Lt. Victor L. Stewart (KIA 27 July), Pfc. Junior Rovell Bryant (K/3/24, KIA 30 July), Pfc. Leroy Whitlow (K/3/24, DOW 30 July), Pfc. Hubert Horton Jr. (k/3/24, KIA 31 July) and Pfc. Rutherford Early Jr. (B/1/24, KIA 27 July).75.197.232.208 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC) **I can't find any info on that, though I'm sure all the wounded received purple hearts and no one won a medal of honor or DSC. — Ed! (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * there are a couple of dab links that need fixing: ;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the lead "incredibly poorly" - could this be reworded slightly? The word "poor" or "poorly" is used a couple of times, so it would be good for variety to use a different adjective, but also "incredibly" seems like it might be a judgement;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the lead "US Military" or "US military"?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the lead, 1st Cavalry Division could be wikilinked;
 * That's a mistake. Changed. — Ed! (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the US 25th Inf section, "ROK" - this abbreviation should be formally introduced (e.g. "Republic of Korea (ROK)...";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the US 25th Inf section, "General Walker" - who is this? The first mention of him is of him giving orders to the 25th Inf, but there doesn't appear to be an explanation of who he is. Perhaps a wikilink, and an explanatory clause, e.g. "General Walker, commander of the..., to concentrate there";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Capture of Yechon section, "Henry G. Fisher, commanding the US 35th Infantry Regiment, received an erroneous message early that morning the North Koreans had driven..." (I think there is a missing word here, perhaps "stating that" should be included after "morning"?);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Capture of Yechon section, "The Capital Division now concentrated there the bulk of its forces..." I think this would read more smoothly as "The Capital Division then concentrated the bulk of its forces there, and opposed...";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Drawing battle lines section, "platoon" could be wikilinked to provide the reader with an understanding about the size of this force, same with "battalion" and "company" where appropriate;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * there is inconsistency in presentation of subunit designations, e.g. there is "A Company", but then "Company K". I think these should be consistent, unless different regiments chose different subunit designation styles officially;
 * I think I have eliminated the inconsistency. — Ed! (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the UN consolidates around Sangju section, "Hwanggan-Poun road" - this should have an endash, e.g. "Hwanggan–Poun road". Same with "Seoul-Taegu highway";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the UN consolidates section, "...destroyed 7 North Korean T-34 tanks...". The MOS usually prefers values under 10 to be spelt, thus "...seven North Korea T-34 tanks". Also "4 more tanks..." and "1 tank intact";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the North Korean attack on Sangju section, "two officers and a noncomissioned officers..." - typo?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the North Korean attack on Sangju section, "Artillery fire from A battery of the..." should this be "A Battery" - as it is a proper noun?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the "The 24th Infantry falters" section, "...without orders, ignoring officer's commands" - the apostrophe should be moved to be "officers' commands" as it is plural possessive here;
 * Fixed. 15:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "US Withdraw" heading - this seems grammatically incorrect. Should it be "US Withdraws?" Additionally, per the MOS it should be capitalised as "US withdraws";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the US Withdraw section, "regimental S-1" - few people will know what S-1 means, you could link it Staff (military) perhaps, or include a footnote;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Aftermath, "segregated" doesn't need to be linked again as it has already been linked earlier in the body of the article
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Aftermath, "down to 3,000 men" - do we know what they were before this? It might serve to provide a little more context about the losses;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aftermath "sup-par" - is this a typo (sub-par perhaps?)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aftermath, "...demonstrate the 24th as a sup-par unit...", I suggest changing "demonstrate" to "depict" - I think it would flow better;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aftermath, "...overly exaggerated thanks to racism", I suggest rewording this, by changing "thanks" to "due";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aftermath, "...soldiers denied medals...". Do we know how many medals/decorations were awarded? If we do, it might be worth mentioning, if not, that's fine;
 * the ISBN for the Millet 2007 work is slightly inconsistent with the others (needs a hyphen after 978);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * not all the works in the References have locations, if possible can these be added in? You might find them on
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot  c Alt text
 * no dabs found by the tools.
 * ext links work and alt text is present.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * All issues dealt with above.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No issues.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Some recent edits due to DYK and improvements around this review, but nothing that constitutes an edit war.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * A good article about an interesting subject in my opinion, so I have passed it as such. Good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)