Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Naktong Bulge/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:32, 27 April 2010.

Battle of Naktong Bulge

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. — Ed! (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. No dab links and no external links. Could you perhaps crop the lead image to get rid of the text at its top? Ucucha 01:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The tails of the g's are still visible, which looks odd; your call whether you want to further crop to get rid of that or to preserve the extra bit of sky at the top. Ucucha 01:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: I supported this for A class and I can't see why it shouldn't be an FA. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose A solid and detailed article, but it could do with some work on the prose and putting some information in context. There's a slight imbalance in the content of the article as well, with more detail on the US troops. I've made a few minor copy edits, but you'll want to double check them to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason why U.S. has full stops in between while KPA and UN don't? It looks a bit untidy and inconsistent.
 * "…attempting to cut U.S. supply lines to the north as well as gaining a bridgehead": If they gained the bridgehead, that means it already existed; do you mean the KPA attempted to establish one?
 * It's a small point and easily fixed, but there's no date given for the start of the war in the outbreak section. This would open up the possibility of splitting up the first sentence of that section, which is a bit long. Eg: "The Korean War broke out on 25 June 1950 when the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) invaded it neighbor, the Republic of Korea (South Korea). The United Nations decided to commit troops to the conflict on behalf of the south."
 * I'm not particularly familiar with the Korean War, but wasn't the US part of the UN? The impression given is that the US independently decided to send troops. On the same note, I think the US relationship with UN forces (and who exactly made up the UN forces) should be explained. Did the US take the lead, because the article mentions UN forces only three times.
 * "…to allow follow on forces to arrive": Wouldn't "to allow reinforcements to arrive" be better?
 * "For the first month after the defeat of Task Force Smith…": This is the first time we hear of the task force, who were they and where were they defeated?
 * "…but delaying North Korean forces until July 20": Delaying NK forces from doing what until July 20? Also, it doesn't really mean much if you don't say when the battle started.
 * "By that time, the Eighth Army's force of combat troops were roughly equal to North Korean forces attacking the region": Repetition of forced can be avoided by rephrasing the sentence, eg: "By that time, the Eighth Army's combat troops were roughly equal in number to the North Korean forces attacking the region"
 * In the first paragraph of the North Korean advance section, the phrase "attempt to envelop" is used twice in short succession. Could one be changed to something like surround?
 * "They advanced on UN positions with armor and superior numbers, repeatedly pushing back U.S. and South Korean forces": This goes back to the earlier point of not explaining the relationship between the UN and US force; here the two are conflated (it sounds like the UN positions were held only by US forces). Same problem in the next paragraph: "American forces were pushed back repeatedly". The UN forces are left out of the narrative.
 * The following sentence needs to be rearranged so that its subject (the Naktong River) is specified early on: "About 7 miles (11 km) north of the point where it turns east and is joined by the Nam River, the Naktong River curves westward opposite Yongsan in a wide semicircular loop." That would mean that the next sentence has to start "For most of the loop…"
 * "Forces in reserve would counterattack…": "Reserves would counterattack…" is simpler and avoids "forces", which is used rather a lot in the article.
 * "Artillery and mortar fire units were also deployed so large amounts of fire could be delivered on any one spot": Repetition of "fire" there, is the first one necessary?
 * The article feels a little imbalanced: there's a lot of information about US troop positions, but less for the North Koreans, which gives the impression that the article is written from a US point of view. "Advance elements of the 24th Infantry were badly defeated in the Battle of Osan on July 5, the first encounter between American and North Korean forces": who defeated the 24th? And in the first bit of the battle section, the reader is told the position of the US units, but not that of NK. The reader is told which US regiments are present, but not which NK regiments are. In the US counterattack section, we know who the US troops were and how they were equipped, but cannot say the same about NK Those are just four examples, but this imbalance runs throughout the article and needs to be addressed.
 * "…the 19th Infantry trapped about 300 North Koreans in a village and killed most of them": It would be good to specify that the 300 were soldiers (assuming they were).

Comments Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mention the T-34 tanks at the start and at the end, but they are missing in between. How about a whole section about tactics and equipment?
 * How about a section on command? Some description of the forces in Japan?
 * How about section on logistics? You mention that it was very important, but do not describe US or KPA logistics in any detail.
 * How about a bit more on air operations?
 * How many times do I have to tell you that Walker was not promoted to General until after he died?
 * "Of its original 7,000 men, the regiment now had a strength of only 3,500, having suffered over 1,200 killed." Which regiment?

Comments Nice article, but needs a little globalising as at the moment it is rather dominated by the US perspective. Apart from "Attempted crossings that night were repulsed to the south by South Korean forces" one would think that the US was fighting alone rather than as part of a UN force. Also the earlier "The division was consequently alone for several weeks" implies that the 24th was the only force fighting the communists in the peninsula rather than the only US force in theatre.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Task Force Hull" or "Task Force Hill"?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  22:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Doncram Interesting article, about a battle i knew nothing about. There is one map in the article which could/should be improved or supplemented by another map. A map should show Naktong, the Naktong River, and the "Naktong Bulge" of the article name. I presume that the "Naktong Bulge" is either a bulging shape on a map that comes in from the North Korean positions, i.e. their invasion formed a bulge like the German invasion at Battle of the Bulge formed, or it is the other way around, that there was a protruding bulge of the American and allies' position that the North Koreans attempted to reduce. Which is it? Note, there is a "Naktong-ni" located on the map; i don't know if that is Naktong. If the Naktong River is in fact labelled on the map, then i don't see it. But the article starts out saying the American forces were along the Naktong River, and i would like to know on the map where that is referring to. Hope this helps! --doncram (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.