Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Pusan Perimeter logistics


 * 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) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Pusan Perimeter logistics

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

We've never done an article on the logistical aspect of a battle as far as I know, so this article is the first of its kind. I didn't have anything else to go off of, but it's pretty comprehensive as is. Let me know what improvements to make. — Ed! (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: a fascinating article. Though I'm biased as a logistician myself, I'd like to see more articles of this style (Though it seems you might be working for a featured topic on Pusan?). Despite my support, I do have some suggestions: A1 looks good (my local library doesn't have any of the books, but they seem legit); personally, I would like to see more variety (articles, essays, and web sources), but the traditional book-based approach suffices. I was a tad hesitant about A2 in regards to the conclusion section, but the references are varied enough that my POV concerns are allayed. I was suprised to see no mention of the U.S. Marine Corp's supply woes in the battle, though I understand that the referencing for that may be hard to come by (try stealing some sources from the Battle of Inchon or History of the United States Marine Corps articles, they mention Truman's raping of the Corp's readiness assets). A3 is a no-brainer, and while I'm not really qualified to judge A4 (being a self-admitted poor speller and ignorant of proper grammar), nothing jumps out at me as greviously incorrect. A5 is pretty good; my only suggestion might be to ask the guys at the Graphics Lab to gin up a map of the supply routes.  bahamut0013  words deeds 17:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses. Actually, when I get to Inchon I plan to write a logistics article for that battle too, and I'll cover the Marine Corps situation in much more depth. — Ed! (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand you want to avoid repitition, but it's surely worth noting that the majority of the Corp's contributions to Pusan (logistical and otherwise) were stripped away late in the battle for use at Inchon.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * It is excellent to see such an article on wikipedia (all thinking soldiers know the importance of logistics, but few of military historians write about it);
 * There are no dab links and all external links work (no action required);
 * One image is missing alt text (File:Korean War, train attack.jpg);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many references are missing the place of publishing;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This sentence seems a little unencylopaedic to me: "The logistical situation tipped further and further into the advantage of the UN..." Maybe attempt to reword?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might consider rewording "modified for Korean War use" to "modified for use in Korea";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This sentence is a little repetitive: "During early battles, the M24 Chaffee light tank was the primary American armor because it was most readily available, but it performed poorly in early engagements against heavier North Korean armor." (specifically "During early battles" and "performed poorly in early engagements"). Maybe just delete "in early engagements";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Subsistence for the UN troops in Korea was among" should this be 'sustainance'?;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same issue with names as in some of your other articles. Once the name is introduced in full (i.e. Major General Earle E. Partridge) only the last name should be used (i.e. General Partridge should be changed to just Partridge);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might consider working in a wikilink to Korean Service Corps for the use of porters; and
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could anything be added about medical support and casualty evacuation? Anotherclown (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant work on UN medical services would be the book The Medics' War by Albert E. Cowdrey and the US Army Center of Military History...too bad most of my resources is on communist logistics. I'll add few lines on North Korean medial services. Jim101 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've struck all my comments now except for this. Jim's additions are a good step forward but I really think there needs to be something about this for the UN as well. Anotherclown (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph on the MASH concept, the primary method of medical care in Korea. See what you think. — Ed! (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that seems suitable to me. I accept that you're not trying to write a history of MASH but you might consider adding a sentence on the rationale behind the concept (i.e. providing surgical support as far forward as possible) and the reported success of it (the MASH wiki article itself talks of a 97% survival rate - although this is unfortunately unsourced). Anyway I'm happy to strike the last issue and add my support, contingent of course on Ruperts suggestions below being dealt with. Well done again Ed, this is a very interesting article and nicely done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sentence added. — Ed! (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: A very interesting article.
 * Check "UN nations provided large air forces for transport of material quickly while Pusan port was established for sea resupply.[29]" and the conclusions in general, there are a few gramatically shaky sentences there.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In "(NKPA) launched a full-scale invasion on the nation's neighbor to the south" you have not, strictly speaking, mentioned a nation before: you may want to rephrase.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise excellent content, text style and great images. I didn't detect any POV. I agree with Bahamut regards some svg maps of the supply routes - not critical, but they'd add a lot. Doug (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do but I might not be able to find anything here. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The only thing that i see missing from the article is information on the North Korean situation with seaborne resupply. As you cover Allied seaborne logistics, it would only make sense to cover North Korean naval logistics as well.XavierGreen (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As the text states, the North Koreans had a very small Navy and Air Force at the outbreak of war. by the time of this battle, not only were both virtually destroyed by the UN, but no port except Pusan was developed enough for any kind of large scale logistics operation. — Ed! (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but as i understand it early on in june and july they foolishly tried to resupply their forces by sea anyway which led to the few naval battles that occured in the war such as the Battle of Pusan and the Battle of Chumonchin Chan?XavierGreen (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find a lot of info on the subject. Is there a source you'd recommend? — Ed! (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the info ive learned came from here []. I dont think it would be nessesary to go to in depth, just to mention that that early on they did try to resupply by sea but that allied naval superiority allowed the UN to interdict these attempts and that the North Korean navy stopped trying to escort its supply craft after the Battle of Chumonchin Chan. This source [] goes into detail about the naval operations and mentions various early attempts the north koreans made at resupplying their troops via sea, dozens of north korean supply and ammunition ships were sunk attempting to resupply troops in the south. XavierGreen (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Butting in, it seems to me that this is the only thing that might be considered an outstanding comment, otherwise an uninvolved coord (like me, for instance!) could close/promote this -- Xavier/Ed, do you guys have anything to add here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a few sentences about the subject into the NK land resupply section. It should satisfy this comment. — Ed! (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The material you've added covers the subject nicely, the article is now complete in its scope and i support its accesion to A-Class.XavierGreen (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, tks guys, this is now ready to be be closed/promoted (in fact Rupert has just listed it for same at the Coordinators talk page). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments: This is a very interesting article, I believe that it is quite good but the prose could be a little tighter. These are my suggestions, although I only looked at the first couple of sections:
 * in the lead, this might be reworded: "Additionally, massive amounts of materiel from nearby Japan allowed the UN to quickly procure needed supplies. " Maybe to, "Additionally, the presence of a large stockpile of material in nearby Japan, allowed the UN to quickly procure needed supplies.";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the lead, the third paragraph (where the focus shifts to the North Koreans), might need a modifier such as "however", "but" etc. to contrast the North Korean situation with that of the UN (suggestion only);
 * Added something. — Ed! (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Outbreak of the war section, "The United States' Seventh Fleet dispatched Task Force 77, led by the fleet carrier USS Valley Forge; the British Far East Fleet dispatched several ships, including the HMS Triumph, to provide air and naval support". I think the word "also" should be added after the word "Fleet" and before "dispatched" to improve the flow;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Outbreak of the war section, "However, the strength of US forces in the Far East had steadily declined since the end of World War II five years earlier and the closest unit was the 24th Infantry Division of the Eighth United States Army, headquartered in Japan. Cuts in US military spending meant the division was under strength and using outmoded equipment." I think this might sound better and remove the repetition (decline and cuts), if it were reworded: "Although the Eighth United States Army's 24th Infantry Division was in Japan and was available to respond to the situation, cuts in military spending after the end of World War II meant that the overall stength of the US military in the Far East was limited and the division itself was understrength and operating outmoded equipment".
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Outbreak of the war section, the following paragraph after the one mentioned above, needs a linking clause, e.g. "Nevertheless, the 24th Infantry Division..." to maintain the flow of the prose;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Outbreak of the war section, "follow on forces" - based on comments in a previous ACR, perhaps just "reinforcements" might be clearer?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Outbreak of the war section, "buy time" and then "making time", repetition - perhaps reword?;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Outbreak of the war section, you mention "Task Force Smith" but don't explain what it is. This could be rectified by adding it as a clause to a previous sentence, e.g. "Advance elements of the 24th Infantry Division, grouped together as Task Force Smith, were badly...";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Outbreak of the war section, these two sentences should be linked and some of the repetition removed: "The regiments of the 24th Infantry Division were systematically pushed south in battles around Chochiwon, Chonan, and Pyongtaek.[9] The 24th Infantry Division made a final stand in the Battle of Taejon, being almost completely destroyed but delaying North Korean forces from advancing until July 20". For example, you might consider something like this: "The 24th Infantry Division's regiments were systematically pushed south in battles around Chochiwon, Chonan and Pyongtaek before they finally made a stand in the Battle of Taejon. Although they were almost completely destroyed in the subsequent fighting, the 24th Infantry Division was able to delay the North Korean advance until July 20, by which time reinforcements had arrived and the Eighth Army was able to field a force roughly equal to the North Korean forces in the region." AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I have responded to everything. — Ed! (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, Ed. I suggest maybe having someone outside the project take a look for jargon, etc. before taking to FAC, but generally this is a very impressive article and I would really like to see more on similar subjects. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support This is a great topic for an article, and hopefully starts a trend - there's a vast (and often very interesting) literature on military logistics just waiting to be mined for articles. The article itself is also great and easily meets the A class criteria. My suggestions for further improvements are:
 * I'd suggest reviewing the use of 'UN' - in many instances the forces it refers to could only be United States
 * Well, at this point in the war, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands were providing naval and air support in addition to the British contingent, so I thought it would be safest to include them all in the discussion of logistics. I tried to make this more clear. — Ed! (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More material on the South Korean army would be useful, as it seems somewhat under-represented
 * I've tried to clarify my use of UN to show that it referrs to the entire UN side (ie logistics problems the UN had were shared by the ROKs in addition to their own unique challenges) — Ed! (talk) 03:15, 22 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, delaying much larger North Korean units to buy time to allow reinforcements to arrive.[7] The division was consequently alone for several weeks as it attempted to delay the North Koreans" - this is a bit US-centric; the South Koreans took the "initial shock" of the North Korean advance and fought alongside the 24th Division, so it wasn't entirely "alone".
 * Tried to clarify here too. Again South Korea wasn't a member of the UN, so the 24th ID was the only UN unit in the country. — Ed! (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be a 'the' before HMS (as this leads to 'the His/Her Majesty's Ship', which is poor grammatically)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unclear whether the gas stations which were often empty were in Japan or South Korea
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The massive demand for ships forced the UN to charter private ships" - were these ships really chartered by the UN itself? - it seems more likely that the UN forces did this.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The distance in nautical miles to the port of Pusan from the principal Japanese ports varied greatly" makes it sound like this differed from day to day!
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The para beginning "The Far East Command's "Operation Rebuild" by August had assumed the proportions of a gigantic production" seems out of place in the 'Sea resupply' section and appears to partially duplicate material at the start of the 'United Nations logistics' section
 * Moved. — Ed! (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A map of the road and rail network would be invaluable if one is available Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed here but I still can't find any good images or descriptions of this. — Ed! (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm making the edits as I go along to save you some work; feel free to revert as always. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The logistics situation at the Battle of Pusan Perimeter": "situation" (as it's used here) is widely considered a word to avoid in formal writing; it's not forbidden, but if it feels like you have to use it, then something may be wrong. If you didn't go with "Logistics at the Battle of Pusan Perimeter" because that sounded wrong to you, then that shouldn't be the page title.  Maybe "Logistics for in the Battle of Pusan Perimeter"? - Dank (push to talk) 05:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Took the word out. — Ed! (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked for advice on the page title at WT:RM. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The logistics situation at the Battle of Pusan Perimeter during the Korean War is widely recognized to be among the most decisive factors in determining the outcome of the battle. During the fight lasting from August 4 to September 15, 1950, United Nations forces were able to build up their own supply lines and interdict the North Korean forces, whose routes of supply were steadily reduced and cut off.": I like: "Logistics in the Battle of Pusan Perimeter (August 4 – September 15, 1950) during the Korean War played a decisive role in the battle. Efficient logistics, the management of personnel and materiel, supported United Nations (UN) supply lines while the North Koreans' routes of supply were steadily reduced and cut off." You rarely make this mistake, Ed, but that was way too waffly.  Also, many readers won't understand "logistics".  Per the checklist, "clarity", at least give your readers a clue. I decided on balance it was best to remove the links in the bolded part, per WP:LEAD. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose On hold for a couple of weeks; see discussion here. I want to be clear that the goal isn't to slow you down or force you to become a different writer than the writer you are, but as a matter of practicality, I'm going to have to oppose until someone fixes the problems mentioned in the checklist.  Even the lead section contains most of the problems mentioned there.  I'll be happy to help anyone that wants to take a whack at it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ex post facto much? This ACR has been long overdue for closure since a week before that list was written. Regarless, I'm going to need a lot more specific objection that that. Other than one time format I've fixed, I can find nothing on the checklist which this article violates. — Ed! (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear all of that; I'm not looking to fail the article, I'm trying to implement the discussion here. I have no personal objection if whoever closes this wants to pass it on the grounds that they want to take a while to implement the new rules, but that will mean that A-class doesn't mean what it used to mean, because about four times as many articles are being submitted to A-class review these days as there were two months ago, so I no longer have time to copyedit all of them myself.  I'm pedaling as fast as I can, but I'm going to need some help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's go over it one sentence at a time. Maybe the checklist is too hard and we need to remove some of the items (but if we remove too much of it, it's not going to save me much time). - Dank (push to talk)
 * Before I added it, "logistics" needed a quick definition per "Clarity" (in the checklist, of course). Some writers rely on links to define things; the problem is that most readers don't click on most links, and if they're lost in the first sentence, they may not keep reading. - Dank (push to talk)
 * You indicated on the Yongdong ACR that a explanatory interjection on the 1st Cavalry Division was problematic and needed to be moved. I do not understand how this case is different. — Ed! (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I said was that I would have gone with "(actually an infantry division)". What I'm looking for is enough so that readers aren't stumped, without making digressions that don't move the narrative forward. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to make more extensive use of footnotes to clarify things like this. — Ed! (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "UN troops, consisting primarily of troops from the Republic of Korea (ROK), the United States (US), and United Kingdom (UK) enjoyed overwhelming air and sea superiority during the battle." See "Paired commas".   If you substituted a parenthesis for that first comma, where would you put the end parenthesis?  That's where you need a comma; people are expecting a comma to tell them where the phrase ends, and when they don't get it, they have to back up.  Also see "Acronyms": the most common acronyms (US, UK) don't need defining.  Chicago prefers that we use "United States" as the noun and "US" when it's used as an adjective, but our sources regularly use US as a noun and that's fine with me. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Other reviewers have demanded I include these acronyms on first reference, or else they aren't clear when they are written in subsequent articles. — Ed! (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which reviewer asked you to explain what "US" meant? I'd like to talk with them :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I first started doing this per this ACR, but lots of people ask for it at GAN. This article's GAN also wanted the ROK abbreviation introduced. — Ed! (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, talking with him now. Don't do a lot of research on this, but do you remember offhand which GAN(s) that was in? - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "They used this to their advantage in quickly moving supplies into Korea. Additionally, the presence of a large stockpile of material in nearby Japan allowed the UN to quickly procure needed supplies.": See "Conciseness". Some of the FAC reviewers are famous for failing articles because of problems like using three words when you could have used two; I'm not asking for that, I'm asking for you (or someone) to recognize when an entire sentence is unnecessary.  The only content you really need from that first sentence is "Korea", and that can be integrated into the second sentence, maybe: "They shipped materiel [not material] from stockpiles in Japan [give the approximate number of miles] to Pusan port in Korea."  Then you can remove "Pusan" from the next sentence. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "In contrast, North Korean logistics ...": See "Consistency". Sometimes you write "North Korea", sometimes "NK".  Go with one or the other; I'd pick "North Korea". - Dank (push to talk)
 * Is there an established policy for that? I have never seen abbreviations as a problem anywhere. In fact I've seen them encouraged in FAC since they are often more concise. — Ed! (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's some disagreement among Wikipedians. AP Stylebook, Chicago, and every other style guide I can think of says that the general principle is to use them only if people generally use them ... not that helpful, I know, but much of the text of AP Stylebook consists of specific advice on which acronyms to use.  Actually, I generally like your calls on abbreviations; more often than not, you write out "North Korea" if you're talking about the country, but "NK ..." if you're talking about a military unit.  As long as the "NK" bit is spelled out at first occurrence, I don't see anything to complain about. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I only use NK to refer to units. If there are any other uses of it I would take them out. I've found the units need them though to prevent confusion. — Ed! (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "large UN interdiction campaigns": UN interdiction campaigns.  "campaign" implies "large"; "the flow of supplies from North Korea" also implies "large", since you're talking about all the supplies.  See "Repetition".  Repetition is dismissed by some writers as a minor point; it's really not a minor point.  In our law office, we get frequent calls from clients who can't understand letters that they get from court officials, because these officials are under the impression that it's best if they say everything three different ways.  Since good writers don't repeat themselves, most readers assume that if you say something three different ways, you're trying to say something different the second and third time, even when you're not, and it's confusing. - Dank (push to talk)
 * The word campaign is not automatically associated with largeness, its simply a set of linked military actions. Campaigns can be small or large, in many aspects including area of operation and men involved For example the entire Modoc Campaign was small consisting of a total of no more than 800 belligerants confined to a very localized area. On the other side campaigns can be immense as the often were in world war two, for example Operation Barbarossa was fought along the entire verticle width of russia along with over 7 million belligerents. Now i would say that Barbarossa was a large campaign compaired to the Modoc Campaign would you not?XavierGreen (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's helpful, thanks. As I've said elsewhere, the three things that slow me down the most are small mistakes repeated many times, ambiguous prose, and my own limitations as a writer and military historian.  Still, "large" doesn't add anything here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the word. — Ed! (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Though supported logistically by the Soviet Union and China during the battle, North Korean supplies ...": This is probably a case of "Dangling words"; later you write, "The North Koreans were given supplies by both China and the Soviet Union ..." So I think you're saying it wasn't the North Korean supplies that were being supported, it was North Korea.  It makes a difference; the first means those countries are transporting North Korean materiel, the second means they're transporting their own. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Reworded. — Ed! (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The UN supply lines ... allowed units along the perimeter to enjoy mostly stable supply lines": see "Repetition". - Dank (push to talk)
 * This is a tough one to avoid duplicating, some terms just do not have commonly used synonyms and i think that fact needs to be taken into account when going over repetion in reviews. Searching various online thesauruses brought up nothing, but maybe somthing like materiel distribution routes can be used to replace one of the duplications in the sentence in question though i would assume in a FAR they would dismiss that term as jargon no?XavierGreen (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "The UN supply lines to the perimeter were mostly stable"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So: that's most of the problems listed in the checklist, just in the lead section. (If people want to make the checklist shorter or longer, that's fine with me, I'm making it up as I go.)  There were similar amounts of work to do in your other recent A-class articles, and I did that copyediting myself, but I can't keep up that pace with all the new submissions to A-class.  If you have trouble spotting these kinds of problems, then please get someone else to look at it for you.  Of course, it's not up to me whether this article passes or what standards apply at A-class review, that's for all the people who are involved with A-class to decide. - Dank (push to talk) 01:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm not opposed to a good copyedit, my main objection here is based on two issues: 1) This ACR has been substantially longer and more drawn out than others, and as I said above, these new standards were penned a week after this ACR should have been closed. I don't mind offering one of my fresher ACRs up to use to test out the new list, such as Hwanggan or Yongdong, but you wrote the list then objected to this ACR based on that list 36 hours later. 2) I would like to see more thorough collaboration among MILHIST as to what the list should contain. I don't find suggestions such as "use a dictionary" to be useful and I don't agree with implementations such as the one listed above where an article has repetition because two words have similar connotations. There should be some more specific ones (ie- "use a word once per sentence." vs "Don't say the same thing twice, using the same or different words." - does that apply to a sentence? a paragraph? the whole article?) Few of them in my mind have the specificity to be easily and uniformly used. I would love to be a part of said conversation, as I agree more concise copyediting skills among more people would help the ACR process, but like other MILHIST users I don't have reliable internet for the rest of the year since I'm on vacation. Anyway, those are just my opinions and my only experience copy editing was with AP Style for a newspaper in college so I've been trying to adjust for that! — Ed! (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm asking for patience. Your articles take me a while to work on, there have been a lot of them, and I've got a long list of other articles waiting.  Let me work on some of those while we see if we can get some help on this one.  I also completely agree that the checklist and the new standards need to be a group project, and we may need to wait for people to get back and digest all this. - Dank (push to talk) 05:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I got only one response here on at vs. of vs. in for the title; how do you feel about "in"? - Dank (push to talk) 05:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. I'll be out of town for the next week anyway, and I won't be writing many new articles over the next few months so I'll have more time to work through my existing ones in that time. — Ed! (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A1 passes comments: mostly good, 4 fixits Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given but not used: Huston, James Alvin (1989),
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * London, England surely London, United Kingdom: Catchpole, Brian (2001)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Location: Malkasian, Carter (2001)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In notes, but not in sources, "Catchpole 2003, p. 22"
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: This ACR is due to be closed now as it has been open longer than 28 days. Dank: does your oppose still stand, or are you happy for it to be promoted and work done on it prior to FAC? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggested a number of specific corrections, none of which have been made (looking quickly), so in my mind this isn't an A-class article. OTOH, my review came 2.5 weeks after the article was submitted, during the holidays, so if it's okay with you, I'd prefer to give Ed! more time on this.  Ed!, while I'm here: what I'm looking for from you is some self-appraisal.  Some of your articles are quite good (and I've passed most of them), so my guess would be that it's a reasonable request to ask you to improve over successive articles, take in comments I'm making here, make the corrections I pointed out, and generally re-read your work with the checklist in mind so there's not so much for me to catch.  OTOH, it's fine with me if you don't understand or don't agree with much of what I'm saying, or you do understand what I'm saying, but it takes a while to spot this stuff yourself.  That wouldn't mean you're not a good writer, but it might suggest that it would be a more efficient use of your time to collaborate on some articles rather than trying to do it all yourself.  Figure out what works for you, and let me know; I want to help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well. I've responded to your specific concerns above, and moved the article per your request. I don't know what else to do, I've had a difficult time trying to understand where you're coming from, particularly in regards to the list which I find to vague to be helpful (where does expanding things per "clarity" become a problem with "repetition?" I don't understand, for example where it wouldn't be a problem with repetition to use "North Korean" or "United Nations" practically every sentence) I would like very much to improve my prose to meet your standards but it's not something I can do overnight with a brand new list. — Ed! (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay good, now I'm optimistic. Basically, the way to help me (or any copyeditor) is to focus on two things ... unfortunately, they're both hard: clarity, and silly little rules (such as punctuation) that most writers ignore and get wrong 50 times in the same article.  I kept those two things in mind when Baha and I were working on the checklist.  It's going to help me the most if you practice by sitting down or chatting with someone; read them the section title and the first sentence of a problematic paragraph (such as the one I didn't like from Battle of Yongdong), and ask them what it means and what they expect the paragraph is about.  Do the same with each successive sentence.  If they keep getting a different impression of where you're going as you move from sentence to sentence, that's a problem that's hard for a copyeditor to fix. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: if there is a possibility for this concern to be addressed in the next three days or so, I think that the ACR can probably stay open (based on the writing at WikiProject Military history/Academy/Closing an A-Class review); however, it has been open beyond the 28 day cut off (which was 7 January), so it does need to be listed for closing on the co-ord page shortly. The closing co-ord will have to make a judgement call one way or another, after which hopefully we can all still be friends. ;-) (Sorry, I'm not trying to be pushy, I'm just concerned that if we go too far beyond the 28 day cut off, that it might be seen as being unfair to other editors at ACR who have had their reviews closed with "no consensus" after 28 days because of outstanding comments, or not enough participation, etc.). I seem to remember that in the past MBK004 has been fairly strict (with some leeway, of course) on the cut off time. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be back later tonight and do as much as I can on both of Ed!'s articles. - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Dank, I appreciate it. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the article has been moved, is it appropriate to move this page to WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Pusan Perimeter logistics? - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. That way the links on the talkpage banner will be correct. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry this took longer than expected; I had to think about a lot of different issues. Bottom line: this article is trying to do something that would be hard for any writer writing about any battle. I can see how a great historian might be able to make the logistics of one of Robert E. Lee's battles come alive, how they might be able to get the reader to see that logistics can be just as fraught with danger and frustration and brilliant successes as the military campaign itself. But imagine trying to write an article on the logistics of any large, successful enterprise that has its own article, such as a Broadway show, and trying to justify to Wikipedians that the behind-the-scenes work deserves its own article ... it's doable if you make the case that the preparations and support were critical for the success of the enterprise and had a dramatic storyline of their own, but it's not an argument Wikipedians are used to, and it's a hard sell. I don't know exactly what it would take, but this article doesn't rise to the challenge. Typical paragraph:
 * After the first weeks of the war, steps were taken to reduce the necessity for the large number of airlifts to Korea from Japan. By July 15, Eighth Army was provided a daily ferry service from the Hakata-Moji area to Pusan, along with fast express trains from the Tokyo-Yokohama area. Accordingly, a Red Ball Express-type system was organized. It had a capacity of 300 tonnes (300 LT; 330 ST) daily of items and supplies critically needed in Korea. The Red Ball made the run from Yokohama to Sasebo in a little more than 30 hours, and to Pusan in a total of about 53 hours. The first Red Ball Express train with high priority cargo left Yokohama at 1330 on July 23. Regular daily runs became effective two days later. The schedule called for the Red Ball to depart Yokohama at 2330 nightly and arrive at Sasebo at 0542 the next morning, and for the cargo to be transferred directly from train to ship. Ship departure was scheduled for 1330 daily and arrival at Pusan at 0400 the next morning.

I don't think this is going to seem compelling to most readers. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment for Coordinators I hope the bulk of this review shows I have gone to great extents to collaborate with every concern a reviewer has listed for me. However, this rationale is simply not something with which I can work or correct. It is an oppose based on...what? That the article is inhernently not notable and needs to be deleted or merged? That the subject matter is not interesting? That it needs to be worded more excitingly? I can't find extensive policy on ACR support and oppose rationale, but Reviewing good articles advises, in part:
 * "Avoid commenting on the perceived "merit" of the subject of the article. If an article on a porn star is well-written, well-organized, well-referenced, and follows the relevant Notability, Manual of Style and biography guidelines, then you should not fail it because you think Wikipedia has too many articles on porn stars."
 * In this case, the fact that there are no other specific logistics articles does not mean this one should not exist. It also does not establish a precedent for the creation of 50,000 more logistics articles. Pusan Perimeter's logistics situation was an exceptional case thoroughly covered by every source I have on the battle, and known to be the single biggest deciding factor in the battle. Discussion on how interesting Wikipedians will find military logistics is completely subjective, and I've found the majority I've talked with hope more logistics articles come from this one. Also, WP:FAC states, in part:
 * "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it."


 * The only two apparent suggestions I can gleam from this are 1) delete the article or 2) completely rewrite the entire thing with a new or more exciting tone. Again, I hope I have made it clear I'm ready and willing to address any concerns that I can act on, and I'm also not trying to discredit Dank, whose review has been otherwise very helpful, but I do not see this oppose as anything I can actually fix. — Ed! (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that, since this is a novel kind of A-class article, I'd rather we get some feedback on my objection from others before this is closed, even though this is past deadline ... that's not Ed!'s fault. I don't think my oppose is novel; I'm saying that IMO Ed! doesn't make the point quickly enough or persuasively enough that, as he says, the logistics here were exceptional.  But I think this would be a hard article to succeed with, for anyone.  And I want to repeat that I don't think it's up to me to set the A-class criteria, it's only up to me to (try to) give a copyeditor's viewpoint; what constitutes an A-class article is a question for MILHIST. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done my own copy edit on the article this morning. I don't know if this goes any way to alleviating your concerns or not, but I suppose the answer to this question comes down to our interpretation of the A4 criterion (given that citations (A1), content (A2), structure (A3) and supporting visiual materials (A5) don't appear to be issues here - please correct me if I'm wrong), which states: "The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant." While I can see what you are saying, Dank, about making the topic come alive, I don't believe that this is part of the A4 criterion, although of course if the article could achieve that, it would be great. Ultimately, for me A4 is really about spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, narrative flow. I believe that these are of a decent standard (although not perfect yet), thus I think that the article does meet A4. Having said this, I probably wouldn't suggest that it be taken to FAC without further work. That's just my opinion, and of course, anyone is welcome to disagree (including a closing co-ord). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, Dank, let me get this straight: you're opposing because the topic isn't interesting? I'm very suprised.  bahamut0013  words deeds 13:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. AR is doing so much work on this that he's going to shame me into putting more work into it myself :)  Maybe my point will be clearer if we can fix the problems, and you guys can compare the old version to the new version.  I'll see what I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More comments and questions. Once more unto the breach, dear friends. I made all these edits (if edits were needed). - Dank (push to talk)
 * Just a reminder that, per my standard disclaimer, I don't guarantee that anyone is going to like what we're doing with links. Countries generally aren't linked. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The presence of a large stockpile of materiel in nearby Japan allowed the UN to quickly procure needed supplies to Pusan. UN logisticians worked extensively with the resources within the perimeter to create an efficient means of transporting supplies from Pusan port to units on the front lines.": The UN efficiently procured and transported supplies from a large stockpile of materiel in nearby Japan. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Most of the UN supply lines to the perimeter were eventually stable, while the North Korean lack of supplies meant troop effectiveness was severely reduced during offensives.": Removed.
 * "The UN improved its logistical situation during the battle, allowing its troops to hold out until the Battle of Inchon, and the defeat of the North Korean army at Pusan.": Usually, avoid the word "situation". I moved this to the first paragraph and shortened it: "UN logistics improved throughout the Battle of Inchon and the defeat of the North Korean army at Pusan."
 * "Additionally, North Korean forces were forced to rely on less efficient means of travel to get supplies to the front lines." Removed; more or less redundant to the following sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs fixin
 * None yet. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think this ACR really should be closed as soon as possible due to the the fact that it has gone past the 28-day period. While I fully support and appreciate Dank's sterling efforts to improve and copy-edit our ACRs (including some of my own) and many other articles I think that given that this article has six supports (including mine) and one oppose we really need to be consistent and close this one now (seems to have consensus IMO). There is nothing stopping us from continuing to improve the article once this has occurred. Of course it is most likely the lack of uninvolved co-ords around at the moment that is keeping this one open, however the longer this goes on the more it seems like its something else (which I'm sure its not). I'm also sure this is starting to get a bit frustrating for all involved so a resolution is probably best for us all. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing coord comment -- As one of the few uninvolved coordinators left by the look of it (!) I tend to agree it's time to put this one to bed. I don't doubt that since I last suggested this (before Christmas) the prose has been improved, but I don't think the relative merits of the subject should prevent its promotion now. I respect Dank's take on it, but this view seems to be in the minority with comments like "excellent" and "fascinating" up above, so unless there are any other violent objections I plan to close/promote later this evening. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No vote. I understand that we're out of time. My objection isn't "the subject isn't interesting". Please compare the "before" version of the lead with the current version; the whole article might benefit from more of the same. I don't recommend taking this to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 11 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.