Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Triangle Hill

Battle of Triangle Hill
Previous reviews here and here

After working on this for another period, I just want to see where this article stands right now and is there anything left to do before I attempt another formal review.

Two points that were brought up by the previous reviews are Chinese sources and copyediting, and I want to clarify those two points before repeating the old discussions again.


 * Chinese source: The source I used for the Chinese side of the story is based on the recommendations from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which is considered high quality source in Chinese academia circle. The only places where I used Chinese sources are about Chinese command decisions, troop deployments, troop strength and casualties, which there are no reliable Western source coverage. Most of the facts (aside from footnote #6) from the Chinese source are verified by equivalent Western sources.
 * Copyediting: I have been trying to enlist people to copyedit this article given my rather poor copyediting skills, but it seems no one is interested in the topic. I would like to use this review to bring in some interested editors on helping me to improve this article.

Anyway, please drop feedbacks here. Jim101 (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Anotherclown
A few quick points:


 * Dates need to be delinked
 * Use endashes for date ranges
 * The 'See also' tags at the top of the page unduly dominate the lead, IMO. They could probably be reduced somewhat in size.
 * Remove the one about the Iraq War...not that well known anyway.


 * Some of the paragraphs are very short. For instance just two sentences long, this makes some of the prose a little abrupt.
 * I have been trying to clean up the text for a while, looks like I'm over doing it.


 * Needs a copy edit for some minor typos etc.
 * The infobox looks cluttered and untidy - maybe it has too much information?
 * Trimmed.


 * All images have ALT text, there are no dab links, although there may be some issues with a few of the external links (I'm a newbie with the Feature Article tools but check it out at: Featured article tools and see what you think.
 * I can access all links, but the tools complained.

Anyway I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jim101 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo
Citation nitpick:
 * Full cite in bibliography please, editor of the Rev. Ed. at least and trans.? Korean Institute of Military History (2001). The Korean War. Volume III. University of Nebraska Press.
 * Interesting point...I never found the author of the book, the copyright page didn't say anything useful.
 * Try the publisher, Volume 1 seems to have information for all three vols. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the find, fixed. Jim101 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Zhou 2000 is extensively cited. Please supply § and ¶ identifiers for the claims.  If ordered using a non-Western system, please supply Chinese academic system claim position identifiers (line no?).
 * I broke down the citations to chapter, section and paragraph format according to the structure of the Chinese source. Although I have to point out that Chinese academic writing system is a mess in comparison to here.
 * Its beautiful, and verifiable. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider adding locations for non academic presses (ie presses with non-obvious locations)
 * Add all locations except one case (China-Defence.com) where location cannot be found.
 * Inconsistent formatting of date position within citation "Zhou 2000" but "Korean War. (2009)" Brackets for all or brackets for none
 * Fixed
 * Miscite of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Allan R. Millett is the signed author. Citation (a) is obvious, and should be cited from a Survey history instead of a generalist encyclopedia.  I'll give you (b) use of Millett only because he's a final career grade milhist specialist.  I am very much dog doesn't eat dog about citing EB.
 * Fixed
 * Notes 4 and 5 cite Zhou 2000 inline... are you using inline or footnoting?.. I'll let it pass, but remove the brackets. If these are notes acting as footnotes as well, then Zhou shouldn't be bracketted.
 * Bracket removed
 * fn31b "the Koreans failed to recapture the hill due to the rainy weather and the lack of air support" I don't think TIME can support this claim of a counterfactual military science assessment
 * Removed
 * fn21 Martin is meant to support "the 1st and 3rd US battalions still suffered ninety-six fatalities, with an additional three hundred thirty seven men wounded in the first attack — the heaviest casualties the 31st Infantry Regiment had suffered in a single battle in the course of the war." as a result of oral history? This is so Original Research that it hurts.  Even if Martin was part of the command team as an officer, its really quite iffy.  The cite sounds like a report / transcript of the interview, not an oral history analysis of the interview by a specialist historian.
 * Replaced with citation #7.
 * Dates inconsistent, "Jan/Feb 2009" but "Retrieved February 04, 2009." but "Retrieved 2009-02-05.". Pick one.  Stick to it.  Even within a single ref "The New York Times. 1997-02-10. Retrieved 5 February 2009."
 * Fixed
 * Full stops at the end of cites. Some have it.  Some don't.  Pick and consistent?
 * Fixed
 * Pretty good. Look forward to the FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Jim101 (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)