Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Sangju (1950)

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.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sangju (1950)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I reviewed this for GA yesterday and believe that it also meets the A-class criteria. I have the following comments for the sake of the review:
    • there are no dabs, ext links work and all images have alt text (no action required);
    • my only suggestion is that you might consider getting someone outside the project to go over the article for jargon and to do a copy edit as, to be honest, my copy editing skills are not that great and as an insider my ability to identify jargon is limited. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I read the whole thing and didn't see anything that I thought needed to be changed. --Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Comments - Had the whole review typed out, and then the computer erased it. Oh well...[reply]
    • File:US Retreat from Taejon.jpg, File:24th Infantry in Korea.jpg and File:24th Infantry in Korea.jpg are not under acceptable licenses on Flickr (they have no commercial use licenses).
      • Both images are licensed under Creative Commons here. They're both works taken by US Army photographers and are distributed by a US Army account, so both are in public domain. I'm not sure how else to fix it, but both checked out in previous ACRs and one in This FAC. —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, but that is a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license. NonCommercial, No Deriv licenses are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Just because something has a creative commons license doesn't mean that it has a license that allows it to be on our "Commons". I know that most US Army photos are completely in the public domain (commercial use and derivatives are allowed) - so is the Flickr account wrong? This might be something to ask an image specialist about (Jappalang is the guy I go to when I have an image question). Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per Jappalang's response here, the second image is fine. Since the first isn't important to the article I've just removed it. —Ed!(talk) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for following up on this. Sorry for the image name duplication above, the third one was supposed to be File:24th Inf at Pusan.jpg, but it looks like that one should be verifiably by a US gov't employee too, so should be fine. Everything looks good now, so I'm changing to support. Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Outbreak of war, "buy time to allow follow on forces to arrive." Follow on forces?
    • North Korean attack on Sangju, "However the withdraw had been a part of the plan for reorganizing" First, this is ungrammatical. Second, it was part of the plan but they didn't communicate their intentions? How could the US not know their intentions if it was part of the plan? Or was this just a plan among the Koreans, which the US wasn't party to?
    • US consolidates around Sangju, "35th Infantry came to grief north". First, "came to grief" in unencyclopedic. Second, it doesn't really sound like they came to grief. Despite being outnumbered and having their supply line cut off, they were able to inflict heavy losses and disengage. Unless something else happened that isn't described here, this isn't a lot of grief.
    • The 24th infantry falters, "These positions were twice the length prescribed to a US Army regiment," Was it their idea to spread out this far, or were they ordered to?
    • Same section, "got out of hand." Again, unencyclopedic language.
    • Same section, "a panic arose among the men and the majority of the battalion left its positions." Why did they panic?
    • Same section, "He had to reorganize the battalion himself" Is this significant? Was a colonel not supposed to reorganize a battalion?
    • Same section, "part of it direct fire" As opposed to indirect fire? What is special about it being direct fire?
      • Removed that clause. —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • US withdrawal, "stopped every vehicle coming from the west, taking off stragglers." How did he know they were stragglers?
      • Clarified. Basically, men who had no real reason to be withdrawing were stragglers in this instance. —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section, "He averaged about 75 stragglers a day and, on the last day, he collected 150." So he was there for two days? Then just say so.
      • Clarified. He caught 150 men on the last day alone. The rest of the days he collected 75 men a day. —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • For some reason I was kept reading that as "by the last day" instead of "on the last day". Oops. Well, the rewording looks better anyways.
    • Same section, "plagued by stragglers" You keep calling them stragglers, which implies they are men moving (and falling) behind a main group. Instead, if I'm reading the article right, they were men deliberately moving away from the main group. This makes them not stragglers.
      • My sources consistently use the term. They weren't deserters since they weren't trying to escape the military, but they weren't mutineers since they weren't trying to overthrow their officers. They were simply running away without orders whenever the North Koreans shot at them. Is there a better word? —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably, but I can't think of one at the moment, so I guess it'll have to stay as it is.
    • Same section, "senior commanders had to personally move in to help resist the Korean advance." Did senior commanders not go to the front often? How did they help? Did the give pep talks? Or actually help in the fighting?
      • Clarified. Higher ranking officers usually don't fight on the front lines as they had to in this instance. —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same section, "placed it in blocking positions behind the 24th Infantry" Blocking what? The advance of the Koreans or the retreat of the Americans?
    • Same section, "After regimental commanders pleaded unsuccessfully with him to return to his position, he was arrested and tried for desertion under fire, a capital offense." Since the last person you were talking was the senior noncom, this sounds like it was him that was arrested. I think, however, that you are talking about the 1st Lt.
    • Aftermath, "The 24th Infantry was fully desegregated on October 1, 1951." What do you mean by fully desegregated? What is the criteria? Half whites and half blacks?
      • Basically. As of this battle the regiment was "officially" desegregated, but 95 percent of its men were black. —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't really like the way this is worded, but it's more of a style thing, I guess.
    • Same section, "white officers unable to assert their authority" What do you mean by unable to assert their authority? They couldn't? Wouldn't? Didn't know they had it?
  • This article starts out well, but falls apart a bit at the end. Some jargon, unencyclopedic language, and lack of clarity and detail plague the end of the Battle section and the Aftermath section. Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (edited 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • I have responded to everything. —Ed!(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the quick response. I have struck most of my comments, but am waiting to change to a support until the image issue is resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • The lead is a little repetitive in places: specifically the over use of the words "poorly", "performed", "performance" and "performed poorly" etc. Maybe reword?;
    • After being written in full at first mention (i.e. Major General William B. Kean) should not include the rank on subsequent mention (i.e. General Kean should just be Kean, same to for Colonel White and Lieutenant Gilbert);
    • I don't think its really necessary to describe the road as "the first and main road", maybe reword to just "on the main road"?
    • 'US' doesn't need to be included in the ranks AFAIK (i.e. US Brigadier General Vennard Wilson or US Lieutenant Colonel John L. Wilkins should just be Brigadier General Vennard Wilson and Lieutenant Colonel John L. Wilkins IMO;
    • This sentence is a little repetative "The withdrawal had been a part of the plan for reorganizing the line to incorporate the US troops, but the US troops expected them to send a message before doing so, and did not adjust their defenses to compensate." (specifically use of "US troops" twice).;
    • Use of the term "enemy" in this sentence should be avoided: "The covering fire of a platoon of tanks on the south side held off the enemy and allowed most of the survivors to eventually escape." Maybe reword to North Koreans or something similar?;
    • Use of the term "enemy" in this sentence is also problematic IMO: "Soon enemy rifle fire came in on the dispersed men and E and F Companies immediately began withdrawing in a disorderly manner.";
    • This should possibily be reworded: "enveloped the North Korean position that had caused the attack". Specifically "caused the attack" I'm assuming you meant "that had launched the attack"?; and
    • All timings need to be reformatted to separate the hours from the minutes with a colon per WP:MOSTIME (i.e. where you write 0500 this should be 05:00). Anotherclown (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMO this is another excellent article. All my suggestions have been dealt with so I'm happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportXavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. "July 20–31, 1950": comma after 1950. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Yechon, Sangju": comma after. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "de facto segregated": it's not plausible that the unit just happened to be segregated; black troops must have been assigned to the unit. Better to say "almost all black troops", "largely black troops", or whatever. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Yechon, Sangju and the surrounding areas": most readers will misinterpret this as "Yechon in Sangju" (despite the previous mention of "village of Sangju"). Better would be "Yechon county, Sangju city, and the surrounding areas". - Dank (push to talk)
  • I've rewritten the last paragraph in the lead; there are a lot of judgment calls here, so I'll reproduce it here in case anyone wants to change it: "The US 24th Infantry Regiment of the 25th Division was ineffective in its first showing. The regiment, composed mostly of black troops, was criticized by the Army for being quick to panic and retreat. Some historians have criticized the Army's statements as biased, downplaying the regiment's successes and overstating its failures." - Dank (push to talk)
  • See my previous comments, some of which also apply to this article. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "subsequent outbreak ... as a result": redundant. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "subsequently": more than one "subsequent(ly)" in quick succession is ponderous. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Sangju was a place of both confusion and activity": not clear. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Artillery and mortars fired scheduled missions on the town": maybe "Artillery and mortars fired on the town" - Dank (push to talk)
  • "3rd Battalion, 24th Infantry": comma after. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "soon the town was on fire from the shells", "ablaze with fires started by American artillery shells": redundant. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "North Korean casualties at the fight could not be estimated at the time.": North Korean casualties could not be estimated. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "News of the capture, however, was picked up by the US media": Per Chicago 5.207, use "however" either as a heavy-handed substitute for "but" or as an adverb to modify what comes before it. So: "News of the capture was picked up however by the US media". (Commas wouldn't be wrong around "however" here, but I'd prefer to go without.) - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The 1st Battalion emplaced": probably "The 1st Battalion was emplaced" - Dank (push to talk)
    • Passive voice? —Ed!(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Repeated use of the passive voice is sometimes called "weak"; more accurately, it's a sign that the writer may be avoiding telling us who's doing the acting. I don't see that problem here. "emplaced" is a transitive verb per WNW; you were using it intransitively. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1st Battalion ... did not stay longer than 24 hours. It had been immediately sent to reinforce": nonparallel verb tenses. Better is: "The 1st Battalion ... stayed less than [possibly: not longer than] 24 hours before it was sent to reinforce" - Dank (push to talk)
  • "2nd Battalion, 17th Regiment": comma after. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "reportedly destroyed four more tanks": "reportedly" means you, the writer, have some doubts. If so, tell the reader what makes you doubt the information. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The decimated remnants": redundant. "the remnants". - Dank (push to talk)
  • "defense line": maybe "defensive line" is better. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Okay, that's everything through Battle of Sangju (1950)#UN consolidates around Sangju, a little more than half. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've responded to everything. Thanks again. —Ed!(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for just the parts I covered. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 17 December 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_Sangju_(1950)&oldid=1136064788"