Talk:Chaplain–Medic massacre/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• I did the usual light copyediting.
• "American soldiers were untrained ..." → How true is this? Did those soldiers not go through a basic training, or infantry school? I have a feeling you don't mean untrained. Rather, you are referring to the fact that they were "green", in which case inexperienced is a better word.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Most of the Americans were out of shape, untrained, undisciplined and used to occupation duty in Japan." → This is related to the above. That they were "out of shape" and undisciplined is clear, but I'm not "untrained" is the right word. All green soldiers are "untrained" relative to those who have combat experience (similarly, soldiers with three years of combat experience are better "trained" than soldiers with one year of combat experience). This relationship is better established as differences in experience, rather than training. That American soldiers were untrained seems to imply that they did not go through any formal training (such as basic training).
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• "...a group of men from the NK 3rd Division which had infiltrated the US lines." → For the sake of formality, I think NK should be "North Korean", even if it's repeated.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Felhoelter told Buttery to escape, and as the medic ran, he was shot in the ankle by North Korean fire, though he was able to escape the wound was severely wounded." → This sentence needs work (... "his wound was severely wounded"?)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Regarding the citations, while I figure that linking each and every reference to the book in the bibliography is acceptable by Wikipedia standards, I think it is far better to link only the first use, and then use regular unlinked citations thereafter. Right now, it's kind of hard on the eyes to read those citations because of the heavy linking.
  • Normally I'd be inclined to agree, but my experience in the war crimes and massacre articles people have preferred I cite heavily to be safe. Do you agree? —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not referring to the number of sites, just the citation style. I'm not suggesting you reduce the number of cites, rather reduce the amount of times each reference links to the bibliography. JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Although not necessary for this review, I suggest finding someone to copyedit the article a bit.

Until the above is sorted, I will put this review on hold. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I've responded to everything. Let me know. —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Apart from that standing issue with the references (not the references themselves, but that template which links every single reference to its respective book. You should only need to do it once), this article looks good to go. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)