Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Battle Mountain

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.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Battle Mountain[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 17:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009:

Another well researched, clearly written article. Support, with some minor comments below:

  • "Following the June 25, 1950 outbreak of the Korean War as a result of the invasion of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) by its northern neighbor, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the United Nations decided to commit troops to the conflict in support of South Korea." It ight be worth reversing this sentence, so that it began with the UN committing forces (putting the active bit of the sentence first).
  • "the goal of fighting back the North Korean invasion" - can you fight back an invasion? You can fight back against an invasion, but I'm not sure about this construct. It didn't seem quite right to me. ("pushing back", "containing" etc. instead?)
  • "However, US forces in the Far East had been steadily decreasing " - you probably need to have "the number" in here, to make it clear what had been decreasing (otherwise it could have been quality, etc.)
  • " delaying much larger North Korean units to buy time to allow reinforcements to arrive." "the much larger"?
  • "began surrounding the Pusan Perimeter from all sides in an attempt to envelop it. " - I'm being picky, but if they surrounded it, surely they were enveloping it, rather than just attempting to do so?
    • Actually that's an interesting question. I've never heard of Pusan Perimeter referred to as a salient or a pocket; the purpose of the entire campaign seems to have been so the North Koreans could break through the lines and collapse them, but though the lines were deadlocked on land, the North Koreans never successfully enveloped the force and it always had naval superiority anyway, meaning it had free operation despite being engaged all across the perimeter. —Ed!(talk) 17:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attacking the US 25th Infantry Division on multiple fronts, with main efforts aimed" - "the main efforts" (or "their main efforts")?
  • "Men who fought there called the eastern one Green Peak." - US forces who fought there called it this, presumably; your previous sentences suggest that the NK's didn't though.
  • "much more difficult from the east, the American-held side, than from the west, the North Korean side" - could this be "much more difficult from the eastern, American-held side, than from the western, North Korean side"? (removes the "the"s)
  • "The turnaround time for trains to Battle Mountain was six hours. " - trains? I was missing where the trains came into this (or where they came from, etc.)
  • "The wire men " - first time I'd really come across this term, and it didn't make sense until the end of the sentence.
  • "North Korean troops often did not have time to move dead and wounded from the peak at all, forcing both sides to bury casualties in shallow graves along the peak." - not clear that the two bits of the sentence match (i.e. how did the NK troops not having time to move dead and wounded force the US troops to bury their casualties along the peak?)
  • "emplaced in the valley" - strictly speaking, this is correct, but its a very specific use of the word emplaced, and would read oddly to a non-specialist.
  • " Officers could collect only 40 men to bring them back into position." - unclear who the "them" is here (e.g. the unit? the 40 men?)
  • "the American artillery and mortars fired concentrations" - again, a specialist phrase (some would ask "concentrations of what"?)
  • "24th Infantry troops continued to straggle from their positions" - the verb "straggle" sounded odd to me.
  • "Walker declined, feeling he couldn't afford to lose a regiment" - "could not", rather than "couldn't"
Comments

Overall excellent, but some minor things i found missing,

  • What was the name of the commander of the South Korean force that took part in the battle?
    • The Korean presence consisted of several groups of ROK National Police. For all intents and purposes they were like KATUSAs in that they were merely attachments to the American units and under American commanders. —Ed!(talk) 23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many of the UN casualties were South Korean/how many were American?
    • My sources make no mention of ROK casualties. They were likely very light, owing to the limited role ROKs played in front-line actions. —Ed!(talk) 23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did the South Koreans call Battle Mountain before the battle and do they call it battle mountain themselves today? XavierGreen (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Battle mountain is one of two peaks of the mountain Seobuksan, the other being Pil-bong. I hope this is already clear in the article. —Ed!(talk) 23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but did it have a different name before the battle? I assume its named battle mountain after this battle no?XavierGreen (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is known as "Battle Mountain" was about 75m shorter than the summit Pil-bong and not far away. I haven't seen any other names for the mountain, and I would assume it didn't have its own name. Topographically speaking I think it would just be considered one of Seobuksan's several sub-summits beneath the "real" one at Pil-bong. —Ed!(talk) 02:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've lowered the heading level so transclusions of this page made more sense, hope this isn't a problem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
  • I reviewed this article for GA a while back and think that it is very close to meeting the A class criteria. Just a few issues below:
    • No dabs, external links check out, and images all have alt text (no action required);
    • The citation checking tool reveals no errors (no action required)
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [1] (no action required);
    • Inconsistent presentation of 5th Regimental Combat Team in the 3rd paragraph of the "US 25th Infantry Division emplaces". In places you write 5th Regimental Combat Team or US 5th Infantry Regimental Combat Team, but in one you write 5th RCT and just "5th". The use of abbreviation is fine, however it must be formally introduced first and then used consistently from then on. For instance "5th Regimental Combat Team (5th RCT)";
    • Inconsistent presentation of North Korean divisions. In places you write "NK 7th Division" in other "North Korean 7th Division", probably best to pick one style;
    • Overlinking of 5th Infantry Regimental Combat Team;
    • These sentences are a little repetitive: "Upon reaching the bottom of the mountain those who had fled reported erroneously that the company commander had been killed and their position surrounded, then overrun by the North Koreans. On the basis of this misinformation, American artillery and mortars fired concentrations on C Company's former position, and fighter-bombers, in 38 sorties, attacked the crest of Battle Mountain, using napalm, fragmentation bombs, rockets, and machine guns. This action, based on erroneous reports, forced the company commander and his remaining of 25 men off Battle Mountain after they had held it for 20 hours." Specifically use of the word "erroneous" and "erroneously", perhaps reword?
    • Missing word here "During the day of fighting Battle Mountain and P'il-bong, the North Koreans drove off the ROK police...";
    • Prose here: "heavy UN air and artillery volleys struck...", not sure what an "air volley" is. Maybe reword to something like: "heavy UN airstrikes and artillery fire struck...";
    • This seems a strange construction to me: "from the UN air, artillery, and mortar weapons." Perhaps reword to something like "from the UN aircraft, artillery, and mortars."
    • "a flight of US Air Force planes" maybe "aircraft" instead of "planes"?
    • "won the Medal of Honor posthumously for actions" might work better as "posthumously won the Medal of Honor for actions";
    • "400 to 500 North Korean men" might work better as "400 to 500 North Koreans";
      • Not in this case, since the North Korean army had a substantial number of forcibly conscripted South Koreans in it at this phase in the war. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation # 48 is inconsistent with the rest ("Hoyt, Edwin P. (1984). On to the Yalu. New York: Stein and Dry. p. 47.") as you use the short citation method for the remainder per WP:CITESHORT; and
    • In the references section Varhola requires a place of publishing. Anotherclown (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. That's all of your comments. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Happy with that, adding my support now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • In the bibliography but with no citations: Gugeler (2005).
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations for book sources
  • Be consistent in whether you link locations or not.
Looks good otherwise, and the harvard citation links checked out. Eisfbnore • talk 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed everything you mentioned. —Ed!(talk) 18:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - for what it's worth, I think this is another great Korean War article. I spotchecked Appleman. Eisfbnore • talk 07:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-ord note: this review has passed its 28 day review period. It appears that the nominator may have addressed all comments. Could reviewers who haven't supported, please take a quick look to see if you are happy with the changes and state if you "suport" or "oppose" this article's promotion? This will make it easier for the closing co-ord (possibly not myself in this case), to make a decision. Thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments. Phew, just in time (hopefully). - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writing is generally good.
  • Sometimes you say "the 24th Infantry", sometimes "24th Infantry"; either use "the" or don't, for this and other units. - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 5 September 2011 (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_Battle_Mountain&oldid=1140109193"