Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Yongdong


 * 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.


 * Closed as Promoted - Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Yongdong

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. — Ed! (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments:
 * no dabs, no issues with external links, images have alt text (no action required);
 * most of the images seem appropriately licenced to me, but I am confused by the image of Hobart Gay - what is the original source, do we know?;
 * It looks to me like it was from his find a grave page. That's the only one that seems to be the same size according go Google. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does look like it. I'm not sure, but I think this might cause an issue at FAC. Won't they want some categorical proof that the image was taken by a servicemember to prove "PD-USGOV-MILITARY-ARMY" applies? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case I've just removed the image. It's really not all that necessary to the article anyway, especially if it might do more harm than good. — Ed! (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to do that to you, I'm fairly confident that it is a US military work, but without the proof I think it would indeed be problematic at FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the lead, I think that there is possibly a bit too much information in the first sentence. I have made an edit (which I have reverted), which provides a suggestion of how I think it could be tweaked;
 * Tweaked the lead a little. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the US 1st Cavalry Division arrival section, the first sentence sounds a little awkward. Perhaps reword to something like this, "On July 6, Major General Hobart R. Gay, Commanding General of the 1st Cavalry Division, was summoned to General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's headquarters to discuss plans for the deployment of his division to Korea. Despite its name, the 1st Cavalry Division was actually an infantry division and between July 12–14 it was loaded onto ships in the Yokohama area";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the US 1st Cavalry Division arrival section, the abbreviation "NCO" should be formally introduced as such: "noncommissioned officers (NCOs)" ;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the US 1st Cavalry Division arrival section, "Taejon-Taegu corridor" should have an endash per WP:DASH;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * same as above for "Taejon-Taegu highway" and "Chosan-ni-Muju-Kumsan road";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the US 1st Cavalry Division arrival section, I think the block quote for Walker's orders to Gay would be best either worked into a paragraph, or added to a quotation box;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "...Once it was fully assembled in the city, 1st Cavalry Division..." (missing word "the" before 1st Cavalry Division);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the American withdrawal section, this sentence is quite long and probably could be split: "The NK 3rd Division used essentially the same tactics it had employed against the 24th Infantry Division at Taejon that it did against the 1st Cavalry Division at Yongdong; a frontal attack to hold the division's elements in combat, with the bulk of its force enveloping the American left flank and establishing strongly held roadblocks behind the front positions and making them untenable";
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the References section, the capitalisation of the Alexander source looks strange. I understand that it is presented as such due to a comment of mine in a previous ACR (for which I tender an apology and will naturally give myself an uppercut immediately...), however, having reviewed WP:MOSCAPS, I now think that Korea: The First War we Lost should be Korea: The First War We Lost. Once again apologies for the dud advice previously;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the References section, The Korean War: the Essential Bibliography should be The Korean War: The Essential Bibliography per the above guidance. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed everything you mentioned. — Ed! (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All my concerns have been addressed, so I have added my support above. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I reviewed this article for GA and it has improved further since then. Anotherclown (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now :
 * I've done some copyediting. I was impressed with the lead and Battle of Yongdong.  The next subsection, Battle of Yongdong, needs to be rewritten.  When you're going over what you've written, put yourself in the reader's shoes and keep track of how many unanswered questions the reader will have to juggle in order to follow along.  It's okay to leave a few questions hanging in the air till you can get to them ... you can't say everything at once, and readers understand that.  If there are too many things hanging in the air, the reader's patience runs out.
 * I'll try to take that into account. — Ed! (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Major General Hobart R. Gay, Commanding General of the 1st Cavalry Division, was called to General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's headquarters on July 6 and informed of plans for the 1st Cavalry Division to move into Korea.": Okay, so the setting is MacArthurs's headquarters, where we hear about the planning for an operation in Korea.
 * Rewrote the sentence to fix this problem. — Ed! (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Despite its name, the 1st Cavalry Division was actually an infantry division, retaining its name for historic purposes.": It's not part of the main storyline, so if I were writing, I probably would have skipped this sentence and put "(actually an infantry division)" immediately after "1st Cavalry Division".  And in general, it's bad style to say that there were reasons (purposes) for something but not tell us what the reasons were.  Don't hint at things; either say them or don't.  But it's not a problem, readers are generally patient and you haven't lost anyone at this point.
 * Problem solved: I just attached a link to the footnote explaining it at the bottom of the page. Less intrusive. — Ed! (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Between July 12 and 14 the division loaded onto ships in the Yokohama area": [Okay, from here on, I'll play the role of a reasonably with-it reader who doesn't know a lot about military history.] Wait, I thought we were in MacArthur's headquarters, is that near Yokohama?  Where's Yokohama?  (I could click and find out since you've provided a link, but I don't have time to click every link when I'm reading Wikipedia, and it's not that important to me.)  Okay, so, somewhere, the division is getting loaded onto ships.  Here we go.
 * Added a little more about the location. — Ed! (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "It would land on the east coast of Korea at P'ohang-dong,": Wait, "would"? That can mean several different things, I'll have to read ahead to figure out what.  Although some writers use "would" to mean things that were only planned, it probably means here that this landing definitely happened, but in the future relative to the main line of the story.  But I haven't figured out what the main narrative is yet, so this is confusing.
 * Changed the wording there. — Ed! (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "a fishing town 60 miles (97 km) northeast of Pusan in order to immediately reinforce the faltering 24th Infantry Division." Wait, how can a fishing town reinforce something? Oh now I see, he forgot the comma that should have told me where the end of the phrase was, after "Pusan".  [Copyeditors, see Chicago 6.17; my very condensed version is at User:Dank/MIL.]  Okay, so, at some point in the future relative to the main story, the 1st Cavalry shows up to reinforce the 24th, so that tells me the connection between the 1st Cavalry and the 24th.  So far so good.
 * Added a comma to clarify the fact that the info about P'ohang-dong is an aside. — Ed! (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "From P'ohang-dong the division could move promptly to the Taejon area in support of the 24th Infantry Division." "Could"?  I have no idea what that means ... did they or didn't they?  Did they show up to reinforce the 24th, then later move to the Taejon area to give them more support?  Or is this sentence giving more detail about the reinforcement that you just mentioned?
 * Reworded. — Ed! (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The command ship USS Mount McKinley and final elements of the first lift sailed for Korea on July 15 in Task Force 90, commanded by Rear Admiral James H. Doyle.": Okay now we're back out at sea. But is this a "lift" (whatever that is) for the 1st, or an initial "lift"?  This subsection is supposed to be about the 1st Cavalry ... what's the connection to Task Force 90?
 * Reworded. — Ed! (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lead elements of the 8th Cavalry Regiment were ashore by 06:10 on July 18, and the first troops of the US 5th Cavalry Regiment came in at 06:30. Typhoon Helene swept over the Korean coast and prevented landing of the 7th Cavalry Regiment and the 82nd Field Artillery Battalion until July 22.": Same here ... what's the connection between the 1st Cavalry and any of these units? I'm beginning to think this subsection isn't about the 1st Cavalry after all.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And so on. Give it another whack and I'll be happy to take another look. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. My partner John says I'm coming off as "irritated". In two other reviews, you're saying that you can't fix the problems because you don't know what's wrong.  Also, per comments at WT:MHC, I need to give enough detail so that everyone can understand why I'm opposing, but if I sounded "irritated" then I went too far.  Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm coming back to give this article another copyedit over the next few days. — Ed! (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

More comments and questions
 * Per my standard disclaimer, I don't look closely at whether links conform to MOS; some will want to remove the link to for instance North Korea per WP:Linking.
 * I've tended to this this is an exception to national linking rules; the battle involved the country directly, with troops ordered by its leaders to fight on its behalf. Do you disagree? — Ed! (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. WP:Linking seems clear, but OTOH, links aren't checked as rigorously at FAC as some other things (if you're headed to FAC). - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does "other Eighth Army supporting units" include the 7th Infantry Division, 25th Infantry Division, and 1st Cavalry Division? - Dank (push to talk) 05:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. — Ed! (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No vote. I understand that we're out of time on this one; there's more I would do if I had the time, so I wouldn't recommend taking this one to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have finished the close copy edit on the remainder of the article. Check to see if it is up to your standards. — Ed! (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look after I finish the current AmEng articles at ACR. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A1 is good comments: Mostly good, some fixit. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources and notes:
 * Surely London, United Kingdom; not London, England: "Catchpole, Brian (2001)"
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given but not used, "Ecker, Richard E. (2004)" and no location
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given but not used, "Millett, Allan R. (2007)"
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given but not used, "Millett, Allan R. (2010)"
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In short cites but not in bibliography, "Varhola 2004, p. 249" ; "Varhola 2001, p. 90"
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still has a stray "Varhola 2004, p. 249" to fix though Fifelfoo (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 09:35, 6 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.