Talk:First and Second Battles of Wonju/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * In the references section, Mossman needs an ISBN and probably doesn't need an accessed date as it is a published book, even though it is also available on the web. Including is inconsistent with the other works IMO;
 * Fixed.


 * Per WP:SURNAME, an individual should be introduced at first instance with their rank and full name (e.g. Major General Edward Almond) and then all subsequent mentions should just be by surname (e.g. Almond). There a number instances where you refer to individuals by rank and surname on subsequent mentions (e.g General Almond and General Ridgway);
 * Fixed, although I don't know whether mentioned in lede counts as first mention.
 * I always treat the lead seperatly so I don't think it counts. IMO how you have it now is fine. Anotherclown (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is probably unnecessary to bold 'United Nations' in the infobox (and its inconsistent with the rest of the entries, none of which are bolded); and
 * Fixed. Jim101 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2011 (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 no errors (no action required)
 * Disambiguations: no dabs - (no action required)
 * Linkrot: Ext links all work - (no action required)
 * Alt text: all images have alt text -  (no action required)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the lead: "Korean western front" seems a little redundant, could probably just reword to "western front";
 * Fixed
 * In some places there is an overuse of superlatives. For example: "numerous" (which I reworded as "a number"), "completely shattered" (reworded to "shattered"). There are other examples still in the article which I may have missed so please have a look and reword if required;
 * Caught two, fixed--Jim101 (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Background, this seems a little imprecise: "Chinese forces launched a series of surprise attacks against the UN forces near the Sino-Korean border at the end of 1950." Specifically when did the offensive begin, probably late October - early November I think?;
 * The CCF Second Offensive started at November 25. Changed
 * This is a little gramatically incorrect: " In its absence, the Republic of Korea (ROK) Army was forced to take over the defenses of the central and the eastern fronts along the 38th parallel, with the important road junction of Wonju located near the central front." Specifically "with the important road junction" should probably be "including the important road junction...";
 * Fixed
 * In the Prelude the 'Locations, terrain and weather' section has a few issues with tense. For instance: "The battle's main focus was around a road dubbed "Route 29"" (past tense) and "Wonju is a critical crossroad village on Route 29. Running from north to south, Route 29 connects Chuncheon on the 38th parallel with Daegu on the Pusan Perimeter. Another road, which runs from the northwest, connects Route 29 and the South Korean capital of Seoul at Wonju. Between Chuncheon and Wonju stands the town of Hoengseong, and from Wonju to Daegu are a series of towns such as Chechon, Tanyang, Punggi and Andong. The entire road network is situated within the rough hilly terrains of the Taebaek Mountain Range." (present tense). IMO past tense is more correct here and should be applied consistenty;
 * This is somewhat confusing, my previous GAN experience in describing about terrains and locations is that unless there are major terrain shift/location changes during the period between 1950 and present day, I should be using the present tense...which one is the correct consensus?
 * Fair question. To be honest I'm not sure about the consensus and concede that terrain will not change much over 60 years. That said IMO I think consistency is probably best (particularly within the same paragraph), so I think past tense should be used. Also I think it is fair to say that "Wonju was a crtical crossroad" as it was critical to the battle which occurred in the past, not the present (as there is not currently a battle being fought there). Likewise it is entirely possible that the road network has changed so I think using past tense there would also be correct. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed Jim101 (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO some of the short sentences in this paragraph could also be linked. For instance: "Wonju is a critical crossroad village on Route 29. Running from north to south, Route 29 connects Chuncheon on the 38th parallel with Daegu on the Pusan Perimeter." This could be reworded as "Wonju was a critical crossroad village on Route 29 which ran north to south and connected Chuncheon on the 38th parallel with Daegu on the Pusan Perimeter..." or something similiar;
 * Fixed
 * The meaning here is unclear "the PVA 124th Division then advanced eastward in the Korean rear and blocked..." Specifically "Korean rear", South Korean or North Korean?;
 * South Korean. Fixed
 * This is poorly constructed IMO: "At the same time, the Chinese troops halted their offensive operations with the KPA II and V Corps relieving the PVA 42nd and 66th Corps, and Kim Il-sung was convinced that a great victory could soon be achieved at Wonju." Specifically "and Kim Il-sung was convinced that a great victory could soon be achieved at Wonju.";
 * I removed that part of the sentence...content wise it really didn't add much
 * The 'Wonju falls' section is a little repetitive. Specifically "Wonju" is used a lot.;
 * Trimmed a few.
 * Battalion should be wikilinked;
 * Done
 * The tense used in the 'Hill 247' section needs to be revised. For example the article primarily uses past tense (which is correct), yet in places this section also uses present tense. An example is "Hill 247 is located among the hill mass at 3 mi (4.8 km) south of Wonju, and it is a critical height that commands the streets of Wonju from the south." (present) This could simply reworded as "Hill 247 was located among the hill mass 3 mi (4.8 km) south of Wonju, and was a critical height which commanded the streets of Wonju." and
 * Same problem with 'Locations, terrain and weather' comment
 * As above. Hill 247 was surely only critical during the battle, so I think past tense is also correct here. Anotherclown (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed Jim101 (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * company should be wikilinked;
 * Done
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is fully referenced to reliable sources.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No major dramas I can see here, however the Greek and Netherlands battalions are mentioned in the infobox but their involvement in the battle itself doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. Is there any information available about them that could be included?
 * Greek Battalion was involved in anti-guerrilla operation as part of the 5th Cavalry, while the Dutch fought along side of French at Wonju. But they were only mentioned in passing from the materials I gathered, and there isn't enough information aside from the fact they did engaged the North Koreans the battle. Maybe Greek/Netherlands editors can provide few inputs here? Jim101 (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if that little amount of infomation could be included I think that would be sufficient. Anotherclown (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a that little information. Jim101 (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * Good use of both western and Chinese sources.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * 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':
 * All images check out and are appropriate for the article. Good use of maps.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall this is a fine article, and there are just a few issues above to be resolved/discussed after which it will easily meet the GA criteria. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All issues have been resolved, happy to pass now. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)