Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Eighth Army Ranger Company


 * 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.


 * Not promoted. Closed because progress appears unlikely to be made within the timeframe of the ACR, but without prejudice to a new review when the primary author has time to devote to it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Eighth Army Ranger Company

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. — Ed! (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments at this stage:
 * An interesting unit.
 * "Conceived as a counter force for North Korean (NK) commandos..." Would it still be accurate if you said "Intended to combat the North Korean (NK)..."? I'm trying to think of a way to avoid having to say "counter force" early in the lead.
 * Reworded
 * "as only 10 Rangers walked away from the battle unharmed." We'd all know what this means, but some pedant is bound to say that this means that some Rangers could have driven away etc.!
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Organization" section. Because this started with "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit..." I found it a bit odd - the next section then revisits the origins. I wondered if this section might live better somewhere after "origins"?
 * Moved things around so that "Origins" comes before "Organization" now. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "a unique initial organization of 3 officers and 73 enlisted men" - unique to who? (e.g. US Army, US ranger units, any military in the world?)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "The unit was designated the 8213th Army Unit from a program developed by U.S. Army scientists in World War II..." I'm not sure the bit that goes "from a program" is right. "by a program"? "using a program"?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "All U.S. Army Ranger units had been disbanded..." Due to the ordering, this is repeating what was said a couple of paras back.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "felt recreating Ranger units was essential to begin a counteroffensive" - as in the recreation was the counteroffensive, or do you mean "essential to beginning a counteroffensive"?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "North Korean operatives were known to be hiding in the area, which the Army treated as an opposing force in the Ranger training." does this mean that they used fictional NK operatives as an opposing force, or that they used the real NK operatives as an actual opposing force?
 * The second one. They used real enemies in "practice" training. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "An estimated platoon of Chinese made the first attack." I knew what this meant, but "an estimated platoon" felt really odd; "an estimated platoon-sized force"?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * " several pre-sighted artillery concentrations" - worth wikilinking or footnoting what this means.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "who was killed instantly by a mortar" - "mortar shell"? (again, someone will point out that mortars rarely kill anyone...)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Analysis" How substantial was Chae's thesis? In the UK, an MA wouldn't be a serious contribution to academic debate. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's the same here, but the thesis was very thorough and easily found in the Army's online archives. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is normally true, as an MA thesis does not normally contain a significant amount of original research. However, there have been some important exceptions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another one - "Veritas Part 1 2010, p. 37" - shouldn't we be citing the author of the article rather than just the publication? (Piasecki wrote the article concerned I think). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I used information from all over the magazine, I thought it best to be treated as one publication, though every article has a different author. — Ed! (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Anotherclown (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments Support
 * One dab link :
 * Land navigation
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * External links all check out (no action required).
 * Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * Images are all PD and seem appropriate for article.
 * Prose is awkward here: "It was best known for its defense of Hill 205 during the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River from overwhelming Chinese attack, an action which shattered the company as all but 10 of the 51 Rangers on the hill became casualties." Consider instead → "It was best known for its defense of Hill 205 from overwhelming Chinese attack during the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River, an action which shattered the company as all but 10 of the 51 Rangers on the hill became casualties."
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Repetitive language here: "Subsequent analysis by military historians has analyzed the economy of force...", consider instead → "Subsequent analysis by military historians has focused on the economy of force..."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the capitalisation correct here: "G-3 Operations miscellaneous division"? It seems like a proper noun to me which should probably be capitalised like this: "G-3 Operations Miscellaneous Division".
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "3 officers and 73 enlisted men" → "three officers and 73 enlisted men..." per WP:MOSNUM.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Organisation" section seems repeatitively worded and verbose, and you use a number of sentences and paragraphs which could probably merged. For instance you write:
 * "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit, the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare. The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created with an initial organization unique to U.S. Army units of 3 officers and 73 enlisted men. The unit was organized based on the Table of Organization and Equipment documents of Ranger units in World War II. The Eighth Army Ranger Company was organized as a company of two platoons."
 * Consider instead: "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit, the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare. It was created with an initial organization unique to U.S. Army units of three officers and 73 enlisted men and was organized as a company of two platoons based on the Table of Organization and Equipment documents of Ranger units in World War II."
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is awkward to me: "The Rangers' first assignment was to probe north with the division's reconnaissance elements to Poun in search of pockets of guerrillas which had been isolated during the UN breakout from Pusan." Consider instead → "The Rangers' first assignment was to probe north to Poun with the division's reconnaissance elements in search of pockets of guerrillas which had been isolated during the UN breakout from Pusan."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This could be improved: "The troops rapidly moved 175 miles (282 km) to Kaesong and eliminated the last resistance of the North Koreans south of the 38th Parallel...", consider: "The troops rapidly moved 175 miles (282 km) to Kaesong where they eliminated the last North Korean resistance south of the 38th Parallel..."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I question the terminology here: "ahead of the main division force...", might this be more correct as "ahead of the divisional main body"? An advance is usually conducted with a series of screens, guards, the main body and flank and rear elements (suggestion only).
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems redundant: "During the day on 23 November...", perhaps consider "On 23 November..." (suggestion only).
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I question the terminology used here: "...the company moved out on time in the center flank...", be definition a flank is not a central position (it is a position on a side, either left or right, or can be described using a cardinal point). Could you pls clarify what you mean here?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ranger" should be capitalised here I think: "The mortars killed one ranger..."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is awkward to me: "At that time, the tanks of the 89th mistakenly opened fire on the Rangers, causing several friendly fire casualties before Puckett was able to signal them to stop. Two Rangers were killed by this friendly fire." Consider instead → "At that time the tanks of the 89th mistakenly opened fire on the Rangers, causing a number of casualties including two killed, before Puckett was able to signal them to stop." (suggestion only)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "On both flanks, Task Force Dolvin troops encountered sporadic resistance throughout the morning, but were able to capture objectives..." → "On both flanks, Task Force Dolvin troops encountered sporadic resistance throughout the morning, but were able to capture their objectives."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeating the date here is redundant also: "The Rangers established a perimeter on the position and spent the day of 25 November fortifying the position." Consider instead → "The Rangers established a perimeter on the position and spent the remainder of the day fortifying the position."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is awkward and somewhat informal to me: "That evening, all along the Korean front, UN troops were unexpectedly slammed by the Chinese Second Phase Offensive; 300,000 Chinese troops swarmed into Korea against the unprepared UN forces.[14][26] Several kilometers away on the Rangers' left flank, the U.S. 27th Infantry Regiment's E Company was hit with heavy Chinese attack at 21:00, alerting the Rangers to a pending attack." Consider "The Chinese Second Phase Offensive was unexpectedly launched that evening with 300,000 Chinese troops streaming into Korea along the entire front, catching UN forces unprepared. Several kilometers away on the Rangers' left flank, the U.S. 27th Infantry Regiment's E Company was hit with a heavy Chinese attack at 21:00, alerting the Rangers to a pending attack." (suggestion only)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Rangers" should be captialised here too: "Chinese attack were unable to assist the rangers..."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a sentence: "advancing to within hand grenade range."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "They were ordered to fix bayonets in preparation for the next attack." Who was? The Chinese or the Rangers?
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "The heavy casualties on Hill 205 rendered the company combat ineffective,[30] and it was capable of conducting only routine patrols or as a security force for division headquarters elements for the next several weeks." Consider instead → "The heavy casualties on Hill 205 rendered the company ineffective, and it was only capable of conducting routine patrols or for use as a security force for divisional headquarters elements for several weeks."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "The company's next and final mission came on 27 March..." → "The company's final mission came on 27 March..." (suggestion only)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Missing word here: "Rangers began their advance at 22:00 and arrived at the village at 01:00..."
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Overuse of the word "contended" or "contend" in the "Analysis" section.
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the terminology correct here: "Two of the Rangers who rescued Puckett, Private First Class Billy G. Walls and Sergeant David L. Pollock, were awarded the Silver Star Medal for their actions..."? Specifically I think its a "Silver Star" not a "Silver Star Medal".
 * As far as I know, Silver Star and Silver Star Medal are interchangeable for the sake of clarity, as are Bronze Star and Bronze Star Medal. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's everything. Thanks for such a thorough review. — Ed! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After a second look at the article I feel there are actually a few more points that probably need attention:
 * "The next day, 25 November, Task Force Dolvin resumed its advance..." - the previous paragraph started on 23 Nov, what happened on the 24th? Pls check the dates here. I know I have copy-edited this section so I hope I haven't introduced an error.
 * Clarified. — Ed! (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ross ordered a platoon to conduct a stealth attack into the village" – which platoon (a history of a company should probably be detailed enough to identify which platoon was involved in this action IMO)? Anotherclown (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since my original comments some inconsistency in abbreviations has been introduced to the article - in places you use "U.S." but in others "NK" and "UN". Pls use a common format (I suggest "US", "UN" and "NK"). Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not per the standard prose I've been told at FAC. They specify "U.S." and "UN" and have made me change my prose to that format in the past. — Ed! (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. See my previous reviews of your articles for how to handle these problems. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "The company saw a number of other infiltration and combat missions through late 1950":
 * "The United States (U.S.)" [I got the first one]
 * "newly-commissioned"
 * "quick selection process, Puckett selected"
 * "was formally organized 25 August 1950"
 * "to Pusan, South Korea aboard the ferry"
 * "the Ranger training. The Rangers trained"
 * "The Rangers trained 60 hours per week and ran 5 miles (8.0 km) each day and frequently held 20 miles (32 km) speed marches" (two problems) - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "United States Army": In many places, there's no other army it could be, so anything more than army is redundant. Also, while it's fine to say United States rather than US or U.S. at the first occurrence when United States is part of the formal name of an organization, most organizations have a shortened form that's preferred after the first occurrence. The shortened forms usually don't include "United States"; they use US or U.S. or, usually, neither. Chicago 10.33 recommends US (but Garner's recommends U.S.) rather than United States in front of a noun, unless of course you're quoting someone or following established usage for a proper noun. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In Organization, the entire first paragraph is duplicated by what follows.
 * "the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units": I don't know what that means.
 * "Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare."
 * "60mm" (I don't have a problem with this myself, but usually they want 60 mm at FAC.)
 * "designed randomized designations"
 * "in order to fool enemy intelligence and prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit": How does a number do that?
 * "the unit. The unit ... unit ... unit"
 * "This was a unique decision for the Eighth Army Ranger Company, as": This bit is redundant to what follows.
 * Oppose. Needs a lot of work. I got down to Eighth Army Ranger Company. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dank - in light of your comments I have revisted this article and agree that it needs more work. In this my support above was probably premature. I have now done a copy edit of my own. Hopefully this has improved the situation somewhat, although I didn't directly address some of your comments as this is best left to the nominator I think. Ed - pls review my edits and change any you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much AC. I've always been proud of how easy-going our A-class process is and how hard we all work to push these articles through. But in this case, given the density of problems, and given that it's all stuff I've tried to be clear about for over two years, I think I'm going to have to admit defeat; it's not fair to the other writers for me to keep sinking this much time into these Korea articles, I'm going to have to start opposing instead. Ed!, if you could work with a regular co-nom who will handle at least the basics, the stuff that I mention in all your articles, before these get to A-class, that would be a big help, and don't beat yourself up (or me!) over this, different writers have different strengths. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries - hopefully we can still get this one over the line with a bit more work. Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I made an attempt at fixing some of the issues listed above, and some other things I found. Ed, can you please check that I haven't overstated anything? Dan, does this alleviate your concerns, or do you think it needs a bit more work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much Rupert, you did get a bunch of them. Ed!, here are explanations for a few of the things I pointed out above:
 * "seen great success", "see combat" and "saw frequent combat" are fine, because those are (in context) abstract nouns. "saw a steady stream of defeats" and "saw 164 days of continuous combat" (twice) are not uncommon uses of "saw", but it's not good writing, because "saw" distances the actor from the action, as in "The 1950s saw significant increases in average wages"; my understanding is that these battles were raw, up-close and personal. They didn't "see defeats", they were defeated, or pushed back.
 * "The United States (U.S.)": I've never met a reader who didn't know what "U.S." means, and don't link United States, at least at A-class or FAC. There's a bit more explanation above, and there are still too many instances of "United States" in the article.
 * "Following an informal and quick selection process, Puckett picked the men to fill out the company ...": Better than it was, but I'm still wondering why they needed to be picked after they had already been selected.
 * "to join the Eighth Army Ranger Training Center, also newly formed, for seven weeks of specialized training. This took place at "Ranger Hill" near Kijang, where the unit trained", "in the Ranger training. Adopting training techniques that had been established during World War II, they trained", "12 either dropped out of training": You can get rid of roughly 5 instances of "train" there with no fear that the reader won't follow what you're saying.
 * "the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units": I still don't know what that means. Maybe this? "This was an experimental re-creation of an Army Ranger unit, the first since the disbanding of the Ranger units at the end of World War II"
 * "Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare." Still a sentence fragment; fix it by changing the semicolon to a colon.
 * "in order to fool enemy intelligence and prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit": I still don't know how a 4-digit number is capable of concealing all information about a unit from the enemy.
 * "The unit was designated the 8213th Army Unit ... randomized designations to military units in order to ... prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit. The unit was considered an ad hoc provisional unit, ... a temporary unit, akin to a task force. ... subsequent companies assumed the lineage of Ranger units from World War II, ... it prevented the company from accruing its own ... unit decorations." You can do without at least half of those instances of "unit".
 * "This was a unique decision for the Eighth Army Ranger Company, as": This bit is redundant to what follows.
 * Still opposing. I'd like to see a solution here that doesn't involve more and more of Rupert's and Anotherclown's time; I can't say of course what the best use of their time is, but I know they feel the same obligation I do to the A-class process as a whole, and for all of us to spend a disproportionate amount of time here doesn't strike me as a solution. Ed!, if you want to sink some time in and polish these up before they get to A-class, that would work, or if co-noms will do that, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, due to having a day off work, I had some time to do some more. I made a few more tweaks, but I will stop now. Some of what I did might be a bit too drastic, so I will leave it up to Ed now to finish/revert/polish as he sees fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work as always Rupert, particularly on the "train", "picked", and "4-digit number" points. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ed! Not sure if you noticed them but I still have a couple of points outstanding above. Are you able to have a look at these pls? Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: where do we stand with this article now? Given that the last edit was made to the article on 3 August, it is probably best to move to have this nomination closed as unsuccesful. I've tried my best to address the issues above to help out, but I haven't been completely successful. As Ed! doesn't appear to be active at the moment, it is probably best just to close this review and allow him to renominate when he becomes free again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, I've been very busy in RL. I fixed your latest points. I'll try to get to Dank's as quickly as I can. — Ed! (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers Ed, those changes look good. Anotherclown (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2012 (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.