Talk:Battle of Yongdong/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

 * Citations: - the citation check tool reveals a number of errors ("all Multiple references contain the same content")
 * Disambiguations: none found - (no action required)
 * Linkrot: Ext links all work - (no action required)
 * Alt text: All images have alt text (although this is not a requirement for GA anyway) - (no action required)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I don't think there is a need to have 'US' in front of 'Major General Hobart R. Gay'; seems redundant to me;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the 'US 1st Cavalry Division arrival' section should be merged with the second (as it is a single sentence paragraph);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This sentence may be missing a word or two: "Between July 12 and 14 the division loaded on ships in the Yokohama area." Maybe add a 'was' and 'onto';
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * These two sentences are quite stubby and could probably be merged: "It would land on the east coast of Korea at P'ohang-dong, a fishing town 60 miles (97 km) northeast of Pusan. Its mission was to reinforce at once the faltering 24th Infantry Division." Maybe something like: "It would land on the east coast of Korea at P'ohang-dong, a fishing town 60 miles (97 km) northeast of Pusan in order to immediately reinforce the faltering 24th Infantry Division.";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a wikilink for the command ship Mt. McKinley. Also should this be USS Mt. McKinley? (i.e. USS Mount McKinley (AGC-7));
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOSNUM figures under 10 need to be written. See "it had only 2 battalions in the regiments, 2 firing batteries in the artillery battalions, and 1 tank company with M24 light tanks." which should be changed to: "it had only two battalions in the regiments, two firing batteries in the artillery battalions, and one tank company with M24 light tanks.";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Should "division artillery commander" be changed to: "the divisional artillery commander"; (I'm not an expert on American English though);
 * Not in this instance, since the artillery elements of a US division are called "division artillery" instead of "divisional artillery." — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Once a name has been introduced in full (e.g. Major General Hobart R. Gay), subsequent mentions should only use his last name not his rank. i.e. instances of General Gay and General Palmer need to be changed to Gay or Palmer etc.;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest changing the heading for the "Battle on the roads" section to "Fighting on the roads" - as it seems a little strange to me having a 2nd level header of "Battle" and then a 3rd level heading which is so similar;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the "Battle on the roads" section probably should be merged with the second (another single sentence paragraph);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This sentence needs to be reworded as it seems a little POV-ish: "Meanwhile, the situation worsened on the road southwest of Yongdong." (who's situation?)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This sentence in the Aftermath section needs clarification: "Prisoners reported later that the division suffered about 2,000 casualties, mostly from artillery fire, in the attack on Yongdong on 24–25 July." (which Division? I'm assuming the NK 3rd but I'm uncertain); and
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the references lack place of publishing;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * No edit wars etc.:


 * 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':


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Just needs a few issues to be dealt with as above. Anotherclown (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded to everything. Thanks for another review! — Ed! (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. All my points have been resolved so I'm happy to promote to GA. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)