Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/First and Second Battles of Wonju

First and Second Battle of Wonju[edit]

A little known but important campaign of the Korean War. I have two concerns about this article. First one is the lack French side of the story even through this is a famous action of the French Battalion in the Korean War. Second is my lack of experience on covering an anti-guerrilla campaign in a MILHIST article. I would appreciate any inputs into those two concerns and any other criticisms. Jim101 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert[edit]

Sorry, I can't comment much on the content, but it looks pretty good to me. I have made a few tweaks, but also have the following suggestions:

in the lead, "the North Korean forces at the central and the eastern front were effectively decimated..." ("central and eastern fronts" - plural, I think?);

Fixed

in the Background section, "...After launching a surprise invasion against South Korea at June 1950..." ("in June 1950" perhaps?)

Fixed

in the Background section, "....with the remnants of the KPA fled northward while seeking sanctuaries along the mountainous regions at the Sino-Korean border" ("fleeing northward..." - agreement issue with the word "fled")

Fixed

in the Background section, "...and the shattered North Korean forces soon rebuilt its strength at the end of 1950" ("soon rebuilt their strength" or "were soon rebuilt" - there is currently a disagreement between "forces" and "its" - singular v plural);

Fixed

in the Background section, "...13th Army's action would later resulted in the..." (I suggest changing to "would later result in...");

Fixed

in the Forces and strategy section, "...nearly 45,000 casualties at the end of 1950..." (I suggest changing to "by the end of 1950");

Fixed

in the Forces and strategy section, "...Wonju while transferring the division under US X Corps control..." (I suggest changing to "while placing the division under US X Corps control...");

Fixed

in the Forces and strategy section, "...during the opening of the battle" (I suggest changing to "...during the opening phase of the battle");

Fixed

in the Aftermath section, I think you should include a specific figure for UN casualties rather than just saying they were "moderate". In the infobox the figure of 600 US casualties included, I think that this should be included in the Aftermath at least. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky point. The US 600 causality figure is a rough estimation using Ecker's data. The exact US causality number (or the numbers of major formations involved) is unclear due to the nature of irregular warfare, but the raw unit-by-unit data provided by Ecker suggested that they won't be higher than 600. However, the majority of the UN casualties during the battle are from South Korean units, and they don't have casualty data until the fall 1951. The only thing I can find that comments on the entire UN casualties are the description "moderate" provided by Ecker. I would appreciate it if someone has a more detailed research on the subject or to provide more context on the matter.

Thanks for the comments. Jim101 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does make things difficult. My only suggestion here is that perhaps you could include this discussion in a Footnote after the sentence about "moderate" casualties. That might help get around the issue if you decide to take the article to a higher review. Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. Jim101 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose[edit]

Unfortunately I'm no expert on either of the areas for which you've asked input. In general though, this looks very comprehensive and well-structured/referenced/illustrated. It's certainly appears worth taking to GAR, and probably ACR as well. As far as the French side of things goes, it might be worth giving Ed! a poke if you haven't already, as he's written many Korean War articles and may have come across some other sources for this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]