Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Haman


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Haman

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. — Ed! (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments: Just a quick review for me at the moment (it is midnight here). I've made a few tweaks to the article also, which you may wish to check to see if you agree with:
 * no dabs, no issues with ext links, alt text is present (no action required);
 * I'm not an image expert, but you mind need to check the licencing of File:US Retreat from Taejon.jpg (and a couple of the others) based on the comments in the Battle of Sangu ACR;
 * I've just removed that image from the article. — Ed! (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the 24th Infantry collapses section, is this name correct: Arthut S. Champney"? Maybe "Arthur?"
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Infiltration section, this sentence needs reworking, I believe: "Following the repelling of North Korean infiltration on September 7, the North Korean attack on Haman ground to a halt." Perhaps "After the North Korean infiltration on September 7 was repelled, the attack on Haman ground to a halt"?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Infiltration section, "...The tank-led column entered Ham..." (should this be "entered Haman"?)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Aftermath, "It is nearly impossible, however, to calculate how many were lost in each individual engagement". Why is this? Is it because of the lack of records, or some other reason. Do the sources say? If they do, it might be good to explain this. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources say it's impossible to determine how many were conscripted into the NK army during the battle, how many deserted, etc. No North Korean records are available on the matter (and they probably don't have reliable ones, anyway) so all we have to go on is the numbers of NK troops that returned to North Korea and the number captured. All others can't be accounted for. — Ed! (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No dramas. I suggest just making this a little clearer in the footnote, by saying pretty much what you've listed above. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * Timings need to be reformatted by WP:MOSTIME (i.e. 0500 becomes 05:00);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Locations need to be added to the publishing details in the references section;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * These few sentences are a little repetitive: "Approximately 2,000 unarmed South Koreans conscripted in the Seoul area joined the division by August 15. At Chinju, the 6th Division issued them grenades and told the recruits they would have to pick up weapons from killed and wounded on the battlefield. Another group of 2,500 replacements conscripted in the Seoul area joined the 6th Division on August 21, bringing the division strength to approximately 8,500 men." (Specifically "conscripted in the Seoul area" is used twice);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think "US Artillery" should be capitalised - maybe just "US artillery";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "North Koreans launched their coordinated offensive" should be reworded slightly to "North Koreans launched a coordinated offensive";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ranks need to be removed at second mention per previous ACRs (I've got some but not all I think);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "during its time at Pusan Perimeter" doesn't seem grammatically correct to me: maybe reword to "during its time on the Pusan Perimeter"?; and
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More to follow later as I've got to go to the gym now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read this again and I'm happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. Note: WNW is Webster's New Word Dictionary, preferred by most American journalists, and MW is Merriam-Webster, preferred by the Chicago Manual of Style.  (There's not a lot of difference between the two but I sometimes check both.) - Dank (push to talk)
 * "week long": weeklong per WNW and MW. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't tell us what the second paragraph (Masan) has to do with the first (Haman). Also, it's not clear what the second paragraph means by "US units performed poorly", and whether they were replaced by the reinforcements. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The battle remained a bitter stalemate for the majority of its duration. However, the UN troops, in delaying the North Koreans and preventing them from making gains, were able to hold the line long enough for another UN force to counterattack at Inchon ...": "Stalemate" is a chess term that means neither side can win no matter what, and it can be used metaphorically, but what you're describing is the opposite of a stalemate; by stopping the advance, the 24th Infantry helped secure a win. How about this?  "The battle remained deadlocked until another UN force counterattacked at Inchon ..." - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The battle was another example of the poor performance of the US 24th Infantry": Is this a second poor performance in addition to the one mentioned in the second paragraph? It's not clear. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "by now" is appropriate in a narrative; it's out of place after "The battle was another example". - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "August 31", "25 June": consistency needed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "(South Korea) by its northern neighbor, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)": (South Korea) by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). People are likely to know, or guess, that North Korea is north of South Korea. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Yes, but people have previously complained the denotation of the official vs common names of the countries aren't clear enough without referring to them this directly. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "northern neighbor" was the bit I meant; I've made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "United Nations decided to commit troops": voted or agreed, not decided - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "the United Nations decided to commit troops to the conflict on behalf of South Korea. The United States, a member of the UN, subsequently committed ground forces ...": probably redundant. Also, "in support of" instead of "on behalf of". - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "However, US forces in the Far East had been steadily decreasing": "However" is not recommended per Chicago 5.207, since there's no contradiction between not having fewer forces in the region when they're not urgently needed and bringing them in when they are needed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The 24th Infantry Division was the first US unit sent into Korea with the mission to take the initial "shock" of North Korean advances": you need a comma after "Korea", otherwise you're saying that there was more than one unit sent in to take the initial shock, and the 24th Infantry was the first of these (which I don't think is the case, but I could be wrong). But just a comma may not make it clear enough. - Dank (push to talk)
 * No, the other units in-country before August had essentially the same mission - the 1st Cav was doing so at the Battle of Yongdong and the 25th Infantry Division was doing so at Battle of Sangju (1950). — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "delaying much larger North Korean units to buy time to allow reinforcements to arrive. The division was consequently alone for several weeks as it attempted to delay the North Koreans": delaying much larger North Korean units for several weeks before reinforcements arrived - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "24th Infantry", "the 24th Infantry": be consistent, although "the 24th" is probably fine. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Per the MOS, we can't start sentences with the number, so I try to put that in when necessary to keep the grammar smooth. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to "24th Infantry was repeatedly defeated". You use a "the" in every other instance, which is my preference too.  I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "it was almost completely destroyed but delaying North Korean forces until July 20": nonparallel verb tenses - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "the Eighth Army's force of combat troops was roughly equal to North Korean forces attacking the region": If the two sides were of roughly equal strength, all things considered, why not say that? Or are you saying that by this time, both sides had roughly the same number of troops in the region?  I can't tell. - Dank (push to talk)
 * They had the same number of front line combat troops. North Korea had around 90,000 total and the US had 140,000 total, but only 70,000 or so on each side were infantry/armor etc. The rest were logistics and other combat support or combat service support, etc. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's easier for me to follow. I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "attempt to envelop", "attempted to envelop": redundant - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "extremely spread out": it's a good idea to go back through after you're finished writing and check the adjectives and adverbs to make sure they add something essential. I'm not sure if "extremely" does add something here. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Reworded. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "U.S.": Chicago 16th now favors "US", and "US" has generally been favored over "U.S." outside the US. In any event, be consistent. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "repeatedly pushing back U.S. and South Korean forces. ... American forces were pushed back repeatedly": redundant - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "to the Pusan": I corrected this in your previous article I think. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Not that I'm aware. What is the problem?
 * "to the New York", etc., doesn't work. "to Pusan", or "to the Pusan perimeter". - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see it. I must have been looking at the wrong thing. Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not be judge, jury and executioner here ... I'll just say that this was a hard slog, and I could only get through the first two subsections before the end of my self-allotted hour of copyediting. If you can fix the stuff I mentioned, then I'll support just that bit.  I'm guessing there's more work to be done here. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I've been a little fatigued from writing up so many battles lately. I switched and started writing about something else for a few days to come back with a fresher mind before finishing the last six pages in the Pusan Perimeter series. — Ed! (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I'm a bit fatigued myself. I've made a post at WT:MILHIST asking for help.  Your work in the lead is good, but I'm still confused about whether this refers to something that comes after or before the sentence that follows it: "Eventually the North Koreans were repelled, and focused their attention elsewhere along the front." - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Limited support for the lead and first two subsections. - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Temporary oppose . I'd like to finish this one before it's promoted. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On hold until someone checks the rest of the article (starting where I left off, at Battle_of_Haman) against the checklist, per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:MIL. I'll be happy to help anyone who wants to tackle this. I finished up the section I started and made all the following edits:
 * "The 2,000 feet (610 m) mountain ridges": I added "adj=on" to the convert template.
 * "Komam-ni-Haman-Chindong-ni": "the road from Koman-ni to Haman to Chindong-ni", per checklist, "clarity"
 * "north-south communication", "Masan-Chinju highway", etc.: need a dash per WP:DASH (and some support at Chicago 6.78)
 * "The division had its ... regiments" is informal; reworded.
 * "13th, 15th and 14th Regiments": 13th, 15th and 14th regiments (lowercase) per Chicago 8.111 (search for "plural")
 * "from killed and wounded": from killed and wounded soldiers, or (second choice) from the killed and wounded
 * "body of recruits": recruits
 * "As a part": As part
 * "extending west on": extending west along
 * "3 miles (4.8 km) gap": added "adj=on" to the template
 * "KATUSAs": KATUSAs (English-speaking Korean troops), per checklist, "clarity"
 * - Dank (push to talk) 05:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again I'm willing to work with you here but you're going to need to be a lot more specific as to your concerns. — Ed! (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Logistics_at_the_Battle_of_Pusan_Perimeter. Also, my edit summaries and comments in your A-class reviews have been quite specific, and there have been a lot of them, including in this article: I did all the work myself in the lead and first two sections. - Dank (push to talk) 01:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded to everything you've put on this review. If you have further concerns I'm going to need to know where you still aren't satisfied. — Ed! (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask the closers to give this some time, maybe a couple of weeks, and if anyone can find someone who can do some basic copyediting along the lines of the checklist, that would be fantastic. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Now weakly supporting after copyediting the whole thing. What's an "I&R Platoon"? - Dank (push to talk) 05:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Intelligence and Reconnaissance, I believe. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment(s)
 * I'd see about expanding a little on the reason for the military being in such a bad shape; while I realize that the article is devoted to a battle and not to a domestic US military issue it would IMO help readers gain a better sense of how poorly the military was prepared, equipped, and trained to deal with the invasion.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The UN Counterattack section mentions a massive airstrike to help repeal an invasion, do we know what kind of aircraft we used? I suspect that the planes were probably either fighter or fighter/bomber types, but under the circumstances I would not be surprised to learn that heavy bombers were employed as well.
 * Added the two aircraft I can confirm and added "among others" to make it clear there were probably other types. At this point I believe the UN thought the larger bomber types like the B-29's were too unwieldy for tactical bombing and held them for strategic targets. — Ed! (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The aftermath section notes that "...Walker declined, feeling he could not afford to lose a regiment." Why did he feel that he could not lose a regiment? To my way of thinking, disbanding the unit would have allowed Walker to replenish lost personnel in other units and could have improved moral. I will not hold this against you, but if you could find more information on this I would like to hear about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it means he didn't want to lose the formation, as he didn't feel other units could cover the ground of an entire regiment, even if they were reinforced. He wanted as many regiments as possible intact since it was easy to bring in replacement troops in small numbers, anyway. I've tried to clarify this in the article. — Ed! (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.