Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Taegu

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Battle of Taegu[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 19:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find the narrative somewhat confusing, and I believe some restructuring may be needed.

  • "From south to north, the city was defended by the US 1st Cavalry Division, and the ROK 1st Division and ROK 6th Division of ROK II Corps.": Unit placement needs to be a bit more detailed. Taegu perimeter is a big place, so the the sector of responsibility for each UN division needs to be clearly defined. And please indicate which division is facing north and which division is facing west, and locate any significant battle locations that the readers needs to know before the action starts.
    • I think I have clarified this. The divisions were positioned pretty much according to the map at the side which I used as a reference. —Ed!(talk) 02:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from south to north, the 10th,[17] 3rd, 15th, 13th,[18] 1st Divisions occupied a line from Tuksong-dong and around Waegwan to Kunwi.": Same problem, which NK division was ordered to attack which UN division at where? Are those divisions intended to launch a frontal attack along the entire line or chose specific points for penetration?
    • I tried to clarify this too but it is very difficult. The divisions were spread out, their positions before the battle weren't well recorded and they apparently funneled into the same general area for the attack, anyway. —Ed!(talk) 02:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening moves section: the movement between NK and SK units are extremely confusing due to the lack of details on initial unit placements and the intentions of NK and SK commands. I believe fixing the two points above can go a long way in reducing confusion.Jim101 (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me know if my clarifications fixed the problem. —Ed!(talk) 02:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It did help, and after reading the article few more time, I finally have a good idea of unit movement, so I won't hold my above comment against this article. But for the article to be read more than few times to understand is still far from ideal. I would suggest this article to incorporate contents from The Korean War: Volume 1 before taking it to FAC. Anyway, striking all comments. Jim101 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A1 concerned about source diversity. Seek Korean Institute of Military History The Korean War: Volume 1, University of Nebraska, 2000. Editions prior to the University of Nebraska edition (in Korean) should not be considered reliable as it was state history. With the easing of tensions within the ROK regime the quality has improved. Also concerned about the lack of DPRK accounts, but unable to suggest monographs / scholarly works in English. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for DPRK sources, I believe the relevant work would be The Joseon People's History of the Justice War for Fatherland Liberation published by DPRK Foreign Language Publishing House, but there isn't any English version of the book. However, the book The Korean War: Volume 1 did referenced extensively to DPRK sources. Jim101 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to keep the sources more or less independent, with 2 US Government and 8 independent, but the problem is there aren't any North Korean accounts I can find (they did not record things well during the war) though I will try to add a little from the book Jim suggested. —Ed!(talk) 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coments:
    • no dab links, no issues with ext links, alt text is present (no action required);
    • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • in the infobox "3,700 +" (could you specify if this is killed, or killed and wounded)?
    • there is some inconsistency in your date format, for example in the infobox you have "August 5-20, 1950", but the in the Background section "25 June 1950" (there may be other examples, for instance "16 August" in the Carpet bombing section);
      • I think I have fixed all of these. —Ed!(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is some inconsistency in how you present the abbreviation for the United States. E.g. in the North Korean advance you have "U.S. 19th Infantry Regiment", but in the Taegu section you have "US 1st Cavalry Division". These should be consistent;
      • I think I have made all this consistent, too. —Ed!(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Opening moves section, "Within a week, the NK 1st and 13th divisions were converging" (divisions should be capitalised here as it is a proper noun);
      • Not when it is plural; the 1st Division and the 13th Division individually are capitalized, because those names are proper nouns. In this case, "division" only modifies 1st and 13th. —Ed!(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with this, but it is your call. I've never heard of plurals altering whether something is a proper noun (e.g the 1st and 2nd Battalions, Royal Australian Regiment would not be shown as 1st and 2nd battalions, Royal Australian Regiment). By using lower case it indicates to the reader that they are improper nouns (i.e. quantitites rather than numerical designations). They are still the official names of those units, just that you've chosen to discuss the two in the same clause rather than two separate clauses. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Opening moves section, "From August 12-16 the three..." (there should be an endash between 12 and 16 per WP:DASH);
    • in the Second Yongp'o attack section, "In its first combat mission, the crossing of the Naktong the 10th Division suffered 2,500 casualties." (there should be a comma after "Naktong");
    • in the Hill 303 section, "However the North Korean command was also apparently concerned with the conduct of its troops and issues orders to limit killing of Prisoners of War." (the word "issues" should be "issued", I think, in order to maintain past tense);
    • in the References section the Leckie and Stewart sources should have endashes for the year ranges;
    • where possible, location details should be added to the References (currently only the Paik work has location details), but if they aren't available, that is okay and I won't hold it against the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I have fixed everything I could. —Ed!(talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: most of my concerns have been addressed and the remaining one is only minor and is subjective so I won't hold it against the review. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments
    • Gugeler in references, not in notes. Same for Stewart. Otherwise, sources look good.
    • Lead, "attacks in the South Korean troops were more successful". Should this be "...Korean sector..."?
    • North Korean advance, "the KPA force". Who? This acronym is not explained.
    • Taegu, "crossing the Naktong at different areas along the low area." Repetition of "area".
    • Battle, "North Korean soldiers waded across the river carrying weapons and equipment over their heads. The division's three regiments crossed on foot and by raft" The first sentence and the beginning of the second seem redundant. Also, was it unusual or unique that they were carrying their weapons/equipment over their heads? If not, it seems rather like irrelevant minutia.
      • Fixed the first part. For the second, it was notable in that they carried everything they had to fight with over their heads as they waded. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opening moves, "constructing underwater bridges". Could "underwater bridges" be linked? Also, why was the decision made to build the bridges underwater, and was the Korean War the first real application of these bridges? I'm mainly wondering because I've never heard of these, despite fairly extensive military reading (granted, most of that is WWII and before).
      • There isn't an article about them on Wikipedia. North Koreans used this tacitc often during the Pusan Perimeter campaign, it is one they learned from the Soviets. Basically underwater bridges are more difficult to bomb out of commission. —Ed!(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opening moves, "These tanks evidently succeeded in crossing". Was this ever in doubt?
    • Opening moves, "The experienced NK 3rd Division, concentrated in the vicinity of Songju, and the untested NK 10th Division, concentrated in the Koryong area." Sentence fragment - what about these two?
    • Opening moves, "These two divisions crossed in the US 1st Cavalry Division's line." What do you mean by "in"?
    • Hill 303. In the Hill 303 Massacre article, it says that 41 men were killed. In this article it says "about" 45 men were shot, with 5 surviving, which equals "about" 40, but then say the number is unclear. Which is it?
      • 45 were shot but only 40-41 died. As you can see on that article sources conflict on whether four or five of the captured people survived the massacre. —Ed!(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hill 303, "North Korean command was also apparently concerned". What was the evidence that they were concerned - or why is it "apparently"?
      • Intercepted documents allude to this. Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images look good.
  • I've read through the background section and everything looks good so far, with only minor comments/changes. Please check my copyediting to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. I'll read through the rest and leave comments later today. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the rest of the article and added a few more comments here. Once these are taken care of, I look forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the issues you brought up have been addressed. —Ed!(talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good, changing to support. Dana boomer (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Though it might be nice to seperate the Allied casualty figures into South Korean and American casualties if the data is available.XavierGreen (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Taegu&oldid=1136064777"