Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Taejon


 * 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 -MBK004 02:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Taejon

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. — Ed! (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * No problems with alt text, external links, or dab links. Well Done!
 * Major General currently links to the common term, but there is a US specific page for the rank, may I recommend linking to it instead?
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm uncertain as to whether this counts as a breach of Mos, but on at least one occasion I spotted a number unit (like "24th infantry division") leading a sentence. The issue here is that sentences should not start with a numerical number, that number should be spelled out, but I am not sure if "Twenty-fourth infantry division" is correct usage of the term under the circumstances. For the sake of the MoS I would suggest going with the later, but I will not hold this against you should you decide to disregard the suggestion.
 * Reworded that sentence. — Ed! (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the matter of North Korean Casualties; were any papers or communiques intercepted that would suggest a number KIA/MIA? Perhaps CIA assets or something of that nature were used to estimate a loss for the North Koreans, but such a source would not be immediately available. Just a thought.
 * I've done a lot of looking, and I can't seem to locate any sources on North Korean losses. Are there any sources you can think of that would help? — Ed! (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No mention is made as to whether the North Koreans ever figured out Dean was general. I find it hard to believe he spent all that time in hostile hands and no one ever deduced the meaning the stars on his uniform. Can you see if his rank was eventually made known to the NKs, and if not, can you note that in the article?
 * Clarified that part. — Ed! (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise it looks good to me. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded to all of your criticisms. — Ed! (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate. Yes


 * A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. Mostly Yes


 * Use of words such as 'enemy' should be avoided.


 * A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Yes


 * A4. 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. Mostly Yes


 * The prose is repetative in places and could probably do with a copy edit. E.g. over use of the phrase 'pushed back', '3.5 inch bazookas' etc.
 * In some places the paragraphs seem a little too long and could probably be broken into two


 * A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate. Yes

Anyway thats it from me for now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been a little bold and made some of these changes myself, so please have a look and make any changes you think are necessary if I have done something you're not happy with. However, with a bit of a copy edit I will add my support. Good work so far. Anotherclown (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edits were very helpful. I have performed a copy edit of my own, as well. How does it look now? — Ed! (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I've done a little bit more copy-editting and it looks good to me now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: overall a very good article in my opinion. I just have one comment: please check your date format. There is some inconsistency, I think. For instance, in the infobox you use "Month Day, Year", but in the Aftermath section there is an example of "Day Month Year", e.g 20 July in the first sentence of that section. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 6 February 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.