Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Osan


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Osan

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. — Ed! (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting article. I've learned a lot from it (always a good thing), and you're filling a gap in wikicoverage. That said, here are some general comments:
 * Lead is pretty short. Can you expand it some, and make it smoother? For example, you have a few shifts of verb tense, which is awkward, and the focus drifts a bit from the subject. It would read better in the simplest past tense.
 * Fixed verb tenses and made the lead longer. — Ed! (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * good. May need some more work later in the process.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked it some more. See if it passes muster. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Awkwardness. There are many sentences like this one throughout:  The force of 89,000 men moved in six columns, catching the Republic of Korea Army completely by surprise, resulting in a complete rout for the South Koreans, who were disorganized, ill-equipped, and unprepared for war (Background) which could be better constructed. For example: The force of 89,000 men moved in six columns, surprising the South Korean army and resulting in a complete rout of the disorganized, ill-equipped and unprepared South Koreans.  I selected this one as an example.  There are many more that would benefit from parallel structure, simplified modifiers, and simpler verbs.
 * I've gone through and simplified as much of the article as I could. I think the readability has been substantially improved. — Ed! (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, much improved. Won't pass FA at this level, though.  Could you step up another notch?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Simplified even more. How does it look now? — Ed! (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still confusing. On the night of June 25, 1950, ten divisions of the North Korean People's Army launched a full-scale invasion on the nation's neighbor to the south, the Republic of Korea. The force of 89,000 men moved in six columns, catching the Republic of Korea Army by surprise, resulting in a complete rout. The smaller South Korean army suffered from widespread lack of organization and equipment, and it was unprepared for war.[2] Numerically superior, North Korean forces destroyed isolated resistance from the 38,000 South Korean soldiers on the front before it began moving steadily south.[3] Most of South Korea's forces retreated in the face of the invasion. By June 28, the North Koreans had captured South Korea's capital of Seoul, forcing the government and its shattered forces to retreat further south.[4]

The middle sentences say the same thing, basically, just in different ways. Where did the South and North Koreans engage? On the night of June 25, 1950, ten divisions of the NKPA launched a full-scale invasion on the nation's neighbor to the south, the RK. A force of 89,000 men crossed the international border in six columns, surprising the 38,000 men of the South Korean army and routing them at *where: multiple places?*. Unprepared, poorly equipped and badly organized, the South Koreans were unable to mount a coordinated defense. Most units retreated, and the North Koreans systematically destroyed any isolated resistance. In 72 hours, by 28 June, the North Koreans crossed the (how far) of territory and captured the South Korean capital of Seoul, forcing the government and its shattered army to retreat further south.
 * Ambiguous actors. The 21st Infantry Regiment was determined to be the most combat-ready of the 24th Infantry Division's three regiments, and the 21st Infantry's 1st Battalion was selected because its commander, Lieutenant Colonel Charles B. Smith, was the most experienced, having commanded a battalion at the Battle of Guadalcanal during World War II. Who determined this?  Truman? MacArthur? My kindergarten teacher?   General Who-Howitzer identified the 21st Infantry Regiment as the most combat-ready of the 24th Infantry Division's three infantry regiments. Furthermore, the commander of the 21st Infantry's 1st Battalion, Lt. Colonel Charles B. Smith had the most combat experience, dating from his participation as a battalion commander at the Battle of Guadalcanal. (or something like this).


 * I've clarified that the decisions were made by General Dean. — Ed! (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This was much less ambiguous, but still wordy. See if what I suggested made sense. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll post some more tomorrow. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Joe (below) about this article. Much improved since the start, although still needs some polishing.  In particular the lead needs some help.  :)  I'll be glad to work with you on it after tomorrow, if you'd like.  Generally, I support this, for content and coverage, focus and context.  The citations appeared reasonable to me.

Lead: The Battle of Osan was the first engagement between United States and North Korean forces during the Korean War. A US task force of 400 infantry supported by an artillery battery were moved to Osan, south of the South Korean capital Seoul, and ordered to delay advancing North Korean forces for as long as possible while more US forces arrived in the country to support them.

? In the Battle of Osan (July 1950), a United States task force delayed an advancing North Korean army south of the Seoul, the capital of South Korea. It was the first engagement of the five year Korean War. ?? Not great, but the first sentence needs a date, and what it was. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not really happy with the prose, although content is good. Could we also have a map? this one could be tweaked to suit.  File:Korean Peninsula topographic map.png   My geographical knowledge of Korea is very shaky.  Perhaps it would help also to put some distances in the article.  I've tweaked it some, and feel free to undo what I did if I've really mucked it up.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Fixed some minor readability problems, but...
 * "Before nightfall 250 of Task Force Smith's force had returned to the American lines, about 150 of them killed, wounded or missing." How could they return if they were dead or missing? Please clarify this sentence.


 * Much improved since the start of the review, and should be good, although some polishing might be necessary before FAC. – Joe   N  21:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified. — Ed! (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I will have another read over it soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  Comments Support: Not a bad effort. I have a few points:
 * there are no dabs, external links all work and alt text is present;
 * I think the alt text might need a little work to make them a little more descriptive (for example the first image might detail the colour of the uniforms, and that there is a soldier in DPCU at a lecturn, etc.;
 * This one has been dealt with, but if you are thinking of taking it to FA, I'd suggest enlisting the help of an alt text expert. Alt text is not my strong suit so unfortunately I can't really help, but I still feel that perhaps the alt text in the article could be improved a bit more and someone with more experience at it might be able to give a few more specific suggestions. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * could converts be added to values like yards, meters, miles etc?
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * in the Tank columns section you have "24th division", I think this should be capitalised as "24th Division" as it is a proper noun;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * there is some inconsistency in style, e.g. you use "US" in some places and then "U.S." in others (see for instance the Aftermath section);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * should "Howitzer" be capitalised as you have done, (see for instance in the lead)?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Citations # 12 and 18 could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS as you have done with the others.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another inconsistency in style, the company designations seem to vary. In one instance you use Company B and then in another you use B Company. (See for example in the Aftermath section). — AustralianRupert (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have switched the consistency of all of the formations. They should all read "A Battery", "B Company" and "C Company" now. — Ed! (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My concerns have been addressed, so I add my support to this article. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * In your own words, what makes rt66.com a reliable source? To me, it appears to be of iffy quality, but I want your opinion on the matter before I judge the site too harshly.
 * I don't understand what you mean; I didn't use that source as a reference, the only two web site references I used were the US Army Homepage and the US Army Japan Homepage. If that site is being used as a reference anywhere in the article then it was not done by me and I would remove it. — Ed! (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the "outbreak of war" section I would like to hear more about the drawbacks to the services; this can be accomplished either by adding to the article or by adding a main article link at the top and finding a page that better suits the discussion of the times. Being that we were so poorly prepared for the attack and that this page lists the belligerents as U.S. and NK I think you could get a way with a little more info on the US situation here. It would certainly help paint the bleak picture of the services at the time, providing the 'context for the content' such as it were.
 * Linked to the US intervention section on the Korean War article, which has the information I think you're looking for. — Ed! (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the section "task force smith" you have an infobox for the units composition and a quote. These two are close enough together that they could cause some text bunching in larger monitor displays. May I suggest you look into moving the quote to the top of the section, such that appears as the one here does? I will not hold this one against you, but I think it may help the text flow some.
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your images seem to force size with size parameters, as a rule though, we try and have people leave the size parameter blank by simply listing the image as "thumb", that way the browser for the computers used to access the page can configure the image to the right size for the monitor in question.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will address these issues over the next few days. — Ed! (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I have conslusively responded to all of your concerns. — Ed! (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re images, MOS:IMAGES now includes a provision to force the size of images where the default 180px is too small for a reader to conclusively identify just what is going on in the photo. It's the reason why I had to increase the size of some of North Carolina-class battleship's images. :) Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Thanks to MBK for pointing out you got back to me. I'm happy now, and my net thing seems to be not there, so I offer my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.