Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Nam River

Battle of Nam River

 * 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.

Promote Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. — Ed! (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Source review


 * In bibliography but with no citations: Gugeler 2005.
 * Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations for book sources.
 * Do not include "Inc" in publisher information. -- Eisfbnore   &bull; talk   18:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed all of these things. — Ed! (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm still seeing publisher location for Hastings 1988 but for no others. -- Eisfbnore  &bull; talk  13:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed that one. Fixed it. — Ed! (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments Support - I reviewed this for GA and believe it is close to meeting the A class criteria as well. A few points though:
 * Per Eisfbnore - please add place of publishing for your references (not sure how I missed that in the GA).
 * Place of publishing is not required, the only thing mandated is to be consistent; i.e. include it in all or none cases. -- Eisfbnore  &bull; talk  11:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I guess my point is that Ed! should add this information to the other entries for consistency, rather than deleting it from the only one that has it for the same reason. Surely more bibliographic detail is better than less? Anotherclown (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This sentence is repetitive: "The North Korean People's Army's 7th Division effected a crossing of the river on August 31, and though the 35th Infantry was able to stem the North Korean advance, thousands of North Korean troops were able to exploit a hole in the line and surround the regiment." Specifically you say "North Korean" three times, so it might be possible to be more economical (minor point only).
 * It would be difficult to do so; vague pronouns cut down on the flow, and using just "North" or "Korean" would be inaccurate given the situation of the Army facing the UN. — Ed! (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion consider: "The North Korean 7th Division effected a crossing of the river on August 31, and though the 35th Infantry was able to stem the advance, thousands of North Korean troops were able to exploit a hole in the line and surround the regiment." Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent date format here: "Following the 25 June 1950 outbreak..." in the rest of the article you use month then day. Therefore (as much as I personnally dislike it) this should be "Following the June 25, 1950 outbreak"
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider rewording this sentence also: "Following the 25 June 1950 outbreak of the Korean War after the invasion of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) by its northern neighbor, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the United Nations decided to commit troops to the conflict on behalf of South Korea." Perhaps "Following the outbreak of the Korean War after the invasion of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) by its northern neighbor, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) on June 25, 1950, the United Nations decided to commit troops to the conflict on behalf of South Korea."
 * I used to word that sentence in a similar way. The complaint then was that it splits the time clause to an awkward position. — Ed! (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm not going to insist on it. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Suffering mounting losses, the KPA force..." You use the abbrev "KPA" here for the North Korean Army without having formally introduced that abbreviation earlier.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think you may have missed it. I have fixed this now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some inconsistency in the presentation of North Korean unit names, for instance sometimes you write "NK 7th Division" and in others "North Korean 7th Division". Probably best to pick a style and stick with it.
 * These are national designators. I've never seen a policy forbidding a country be referred to by its full title. — Ed! (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was a little unclear here. I have no issue with you putting "NK" or "North Korean" in from of the name of the division. My point is that you do this inconsistently. In places you write "NK 7th Division" and in other "North Korean 7th Division". IMO either is right as long as you use the same style throughout. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any more references to "North Korean 7th Division." did I miss any? — Ed! (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not specifically where you mention the 7th Division, its any division. For instance you still do it here: "North Korean 6th Division struck the 24th Infantry at Haman on August 31..." Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "In the low ground between these two battalions at the river ferry crossing site, the regimental..." would work better as "At the river ferry crossing site in the low ground between these two battalions, the regimental..."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done now. I fixed a typo though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If possible try to wikilink I&R Platoon, as it will be unclear to the casual reader what this force element does. Either that or write in full as "Intelligence and Reconnaissance (I&R) Platoon".
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "several 45mm antitank guns" should be "45 mm" with a non-breaking space in between 45 and mm.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "including 33 machine guns" should be "machine-guns" with a hypthen.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "But the North Koreans did not drive for the Komam-ni road fork 4 miles (6.4 km) south of the river as Fisher expected them to..." who is Fisher?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed this one actually Ed. Fisher is mentioned only once, by his last name. Can you please expand by explaining who he is and including his rank and full name per WP:SURNAME? Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Soon North Korean machine guns" should be "machine-guns".
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "which sealed off North Korean reinforcements" seems not quite right, consider "which cut-off the North Koreans from reinforcement..." or something similar.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "firing 105-mm howitzers, and one battery" should just be "105 mm" with a non-breaking space per WP:MEASUREMENT, so to with "which fired 155-mm howitzers" and " One 155-mm howitzer fired from Komam-ni" which should just be "155 mm".
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * this is awkward "was under much less North Korean pressure...", consider "was under much less pressure from the North Koreans..." or something like that.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent date format here: "1 and 7 September behind its lines", should be "September 1 and 7" per the format you have adopted throughout the rest of the article IMO.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is correct "north of the juncture of the Nam with the Naktong", specifically "juncture" - I think you mean "junction", IMO this would probably be more correct.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the capitalization here: "In support of the Nam River Operations", IMO this should probably be "In support of the Nam River operations..."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The aftermath section is quite small. You might consider adding a paragraph on the events that occurred following the battle to add context.
 * Added more. — Ed! (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall, I found this article to be of high quality. Just a few points to be dealt with or discussed. Anotherclown (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's everything. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nearly, just two more points to rectify/discuss per my comments above. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've got them. — Ed! (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy with that, a couple of minor things but nothing that would prevent me from supporting. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments.
 * Status report: no non-IP edits to the article since 28 August. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've had some things in RL keeping me busy. I'll get to work on it tonight. — Ed! (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments  -- I continue to applaud Ed's efforts to make Korea less of a "forgotten war", at least so far as WP is concerned. While I always find a few things to copyedit or comment on, I generally find the prose in these things to be of a high standard, lively without being biased or over the top. A few things: Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You start the North Korean infiltration subsection with In a counterattack after daylight, K Company and tanks had partially regained control of this area, but not completely. -- Given we're in a new subsection, and the last one didn't end with any mention of K company, I'm not sure what you mean by "this area". As I've mentioned in my copyedit, I think one should always start a new (sub)section by briefly re-establishing where we're up to, unless you're on to a completely new phase of the action (in which case you'll clearly be establishing that).
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Same para as above, do we know what the fighter planes were, and/or who was operating them?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Under US 2-27th Infantry counterattack, it sounds a bit odd to say He ordered the 2nd Battalion, US 27th Infantry Regiment, to attack behind the 35th Infantry. given they're on the same side... Could it be expressed as "reinforce" the 35th Infantry? Or "move into position behind" the 35th Infantry?
 * I don't think we can say either of those, given the situation. The 35th Infantry was facing north and fighting attacks in that direction, but there was a substantial North Korean force surrounding it from behind. The 27th Infantry was attacking this force to drive it out and then withdrawing. It wasn't reinforcing or moving behind the 35th Infantry - just attacking the North Korean force. — Ed! (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I get that -- can we just make it clear in that sentence that they were attacking NK forces behind the 35th? I realise you've set the scene a bit in the previous subsection, and you mention the NK forces attacking US artillery in the next sentence, but it still sounds odd. Perhaps if you combined the sentence I'm questioning with the next or even just put a semi-colon between them instead of a full stop, to clarify the connection... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall, structure and level of detail seem fine, as do references and supporting materials.
 * Spotchecks -- I checked the sole online reference, Appleman, in a few places and found no evidence of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Generally the source info was employed accurately, however in one case the article seems to be saying more than is apparent in the source, i.e. we have The North Korean 6th Division struck the 24th Infantry at Haman on August 31, and pushed it back after heavy engagements. The NK 6th Division and the US 24th Infantry Regiment remained locked in a bitter fight for the next week. cited to Appleman p. 440 but while the first sentence quoted seems to be backed up by the source, the second does not -- unless I've missed something...
 * The next page of the ref establishes that, I believe. — Ed! (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the next page of the ref should be added to the citation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks mate -- all good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: looks good for A-class to me. I've made a couple of tweaks as I saw fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 2 October 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.