Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Chochiwon

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 Chochiwon[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 20:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I've got some comments from my intial look at the article (I'm not up-to-snuff on the technical things yet).

  • In the infobox, there are two asteriks with comments, but I only found the double-asterik attached to something. Should the single be after the casualties for the US side, or what?
  • Under the 'Fight at Chonui' subheading, in the second sentence: "leaving Companies A and D to hold the line with a handful of replacements for to fill the extra positions." The "for to fill" seems a bit...awkwardly worded, doesn't it?
  • Second to last line of 'American Counterattack:' "Most of these men were captured." What men? The 150 that formed a retreat? The unit itself? Those who tried to make it back to American lines cross-country?
  • First line of Aftermath has W killed, X wounded and Y captured and Z missing. Duplicate ands are grammatically incorrect, if I'm not mistaken.

For now, that's what I'm seeing. I'll look over it again after a bit when I'm a bit more focused.Cromdog (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think I have responded to all of your concerns. —Ed!(talk) 00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the article again, I support it for A-class. The only thing I want to say is that I think it could use another pic if you had one from the actual battle or the area. Not a necessity, just something I like to see.Cromdog (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts:

  • Nicely and clearly written.
  • One of the paragraphs begins: "During that time, the 34th Infantry Regiment set up a line...." - we don't find out which nationality the Regiment was until the end of the sentence; "...the US 34th..." might solve this.
  • The beginning of the article isn't exactly POV - in that it is perfectly neutral - but it is clearly a history told from a Western perspective; we get a lot of information about the composition and training of the US forces, but little about the North Koreans; we learn about the type of aircraft used to fly in US forces long before we find out which NK divisions were involved in the battle etc. I also don't think there is any NK casualty numbers listed in the aftermath; this may of course just reflect sources, but if so it would be good to note that this is the case.

Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's because North Korean records one the fight aren't great. I added a sentence in the aftermath stating their casualty count is unknown. —Ed!(talk) 00:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • No problems reported with alt text or external links. One dab link is reported in the article, please see about fixing that.
    • More to follow... TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can find no reason to oppose. This is a well written article, but I do lament on the fact that there North Korean Numbers are largely unknown, but that is not strictly speaking your fault. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm planning to support this but I have questions.

  • Lead: Aided by air strikes, U.S. Army units were able to inflict substantial damage on the North Korean armor and other vehicles, but was overwhelmed by North Korean infantry. The two understrength U.S. battalions fought in several engagements over the three day period and suffered massive losses in personnel and equipment, but were able to delay the North Korean forces for several days, allowing the remainder of the 24th Infantry Division to set up blocking positions along the Kum River near the city of Taejon.
    • Okay, this comes before the battle of Taejon (article we looked at last week), and after the battle of...? Was the aid of the airstrikes that allowed the 24th to set up blocking positions? Or was that the delaying? *When the positions were flanked... twice? once by infantry and once by tanks? or were they only flanked once?

There are a lot of repetitions, some of which I've removed. Would you re-read/re-edit, so that it's tighter? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chochiwon comes after Chonan and before Taejon, which I tried to explain between the background and aftermath sections. The blocking positions were established thanks to the delaying actions; airstrikes are in the previous sentence to establish they helped with casualties, not delays. I have looked over the article again and tried to tighten it up a little. —Ed!(talk) 02:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support this for ACR. Ed, if you're planning to go to fa with this, please do, or as someone to do, a really tough copy edit. I'm convinced of the content and comprehensiveness is good, but the prose needs work. I echo the points raised about the use of "enemy" and such phrases, as well, (pov). Even if there isn't much NK information, there still is no call to refer to NK as "enemy" in an encyclopedia article. Perhaps "opposition" would be less problematic. Or even "their opposition". Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • I have made a few tweaks to the lead, please review to see if you're happy with them;
    • The 'Outbreak of War' section seemed a little choppy and had some repetition and some grammar issues, again please check my corrections;
    • The second paragraph in the 'Early engagements' sections seems too long so I split it, its also a little choppy so please look at revising;
    • The 'Airstrike' section needed a copy edit, again I have been bold so please check it;
    • Second para in the 'Fight at Chonui' section is a little repetitive - for instance you mention the fog a few too many times, use the word casualties, artillery etc;
    • There were a few instances were you gave distances without using the conversion template - I think I got them but please check;
    • In the 'Chochiwon falls' section you again get a little repetitive, for instance 'estimated' and 'North Korean' and
    • Use of words such as 'enemy' are POV and should be avoided (I have removed it, but please check to see there are no others).

Anyway that is it from me, overall it looks good. Again I have made quite a few changes myself, so please review them to see if you're happy with them. In future if you would rather make the changes yourself please let me know and I will be less bold in my reviews. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that either way. I found all of your changes constructive and would have gladly done them myself. I think I have cleaned up any remaining concerns you noted above. —Ed!(talk) 04:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good, striking all comments. Anotherclown (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Generally very good, IMO. I have the following points, however:
    • in the Early engagements section you have "US 34th Infantry Regiment", but elsewhere you have "U.S.". For consistency it should be the same (also the abbrieviation of UN should conform with however you treat US);
    • in the Early engagements section you use the word disastrous a couple of times in quick succession, could you reword one of them?
    • in the Early engagements section "Pyongtaek-Ansong" should have an endash per WP:DASH;
    • in the Early engagements section you use the word "significantly" and then "significant" close together in the same sentence, could you try to reword please?
    • sometimes you have "Companies B and C" (for instance in Fight at Chonui section) then elsewhere "A Company";
    • in the Early engagements section, I think you have incorrectly capitalised "regiment" in this sentence: "The Regiment subsequently retreated to Chonan..." (regiment should be lower case, I believe);
    • wikilink Task Force Smith in the Early engagements section, and remove the wikilink to it in the Fight of Chonui section;
    • in the Battle section "Osan-Chonan road" should have an endash;
    • in the Airstriikes section, you start two consequtive sentences with the words "The regiment". Could you please try to reword one?
    • in the Airstrikes section, I suggest wikilinking "battery" to Battery (military unit), so that the size of the unit can be clarified for those not in the know;
    • in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Airstrikes section, I think "along the roads" is redundant as roadblocks aren't really placed anywhere but on a road;
    • in the Fight at Chonui section, this sentence has a repeating clause: "At 0700 the 1st Battalion then came under heavy mortar fire,[27] and A Company on the leftmost ridge came under fire from..." (came under...fire is repeated, can you try to reword one?);
    • These couple of sentences need work: "North Korean forces, meanwhile, flanked the American positions under cover of fog, passing around its right flank and attacking the mortar positions in the rear.[27] T-34 tanks also joined in the fight, and also passing around the American flanks, also obscured by the fog" (There is a mix of tense ["its right flank" should be "their right flank"]; then there are two uses of the word "also");
    • In the Fight at Chonui section, add an apostrophe to this clause to indicate ownership of the actions (e.g. Stephens') "...positions regardless of Stephens efforts to keep them there";
    • in the American counterattack section, I don't think the "armor" is correctly capitalised in this sentence: "...U.S. Armor in the..." (should be lower case, I believe);
    • in the American counterattack section, "3rd battalion", should be "3rd Battalion";
    • in the American counterattack section, I suggest wikilinking "forward observer";
    • in the Aftermath section, this clause seems a little unclear: "and enough clothing to for 975 men..." — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I fear some of these issues may have been introduced by my edits. I'll take two for poor staff duties and an upper cut. Apologies Ed. Anotherclown (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem! I appreciate all the input I can get. —Ed!(talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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_Chochiwon&oldid=1136064853"