Talk:Third Battle of Seoul/GA1

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

Reviewer: — Ed! (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * On Hold
 * 1) Expand the lead to a few paragraphs to summarize the entire article adequately.
 * 2) Give me a few days...I'm a slow writer.
 * 3) Expanded into three paragraphs
 * 4) Background section: "its unexpected victories over the UN forces had made the Chinese leadership intoxicated with success." — please reword this. "intoxicated with success" isn't very encyclopedic.
 * 5) I tried a different reword, although all sources I have are extremely critical on the self-delusion of the Chinese command.
 * 6) "Immediately after the PVA 13th Army's victory over the US Eighth Army" — please explain which battle you are referring to here.
 * 7) Fixed
 * 8) "A road dubbed "Route 33" runs south across the 38th parallel" — is there an explanation as to why this road is called "Route 33?"
 * 9) No explanation aside from the fact that it's just labeled Route 33 by South Korean government.
 * 10) Evacuation of Seoul Section: "The US 19th Infantry Regiment on the division's left flank was then involved in numerous hand to hand struggles with the Chinese around Uijeongbu" — Was there fierce fighting that boiled down to hand-to-hand combat? Was there hand to hand combat because one side lacked weapons? An instance of hand-to-hand combat in modern warfare is exceptional and should be explained.
 * 11) Details are sketchy at best, but Appleman's book implied that fierce fighting boiled down to hand-to-hand combat. I reworded to imply that.
 * 12) "while another 208 British soldiers were missing in action" — what happened to these men? Were they eventually captured? Did they all end up dead?
 * 13) Captured, I believe, although official British history shed no light on this issue. I added an unrelated study on British POW in the hope that I didn't breach WP:SYN.
 * 14) You should devote part of the Aftermath section to listing ESTIMATED final casualty numbers for both sides.
 * 15) Give me a few days, this issue is a bit complex, and the numbers on UN side are hard to compile because there aren't any sources that did a total estimation on UN side. Given that this is more of a China vs South Korea battle, the lack of ROK numbers or even a description of ROK losses is really hard to put all casualty numbers into perspective. Jim101 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Best I can do is to narrow the UN casualties to moderate...Let me see if it is okay with you. I also added the Chinese numbers in the aftermath section. Jim101 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold for a few small things to be worked out. — Ed! (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I approve. Passing the article. — Ed! (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)