Talk:Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this article within the next few days. Xtzou (Talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• I made some copy edits to the lead to make it more understandable to me. But feel free to revert if you do not like the changes I made.

Background

• Re the opening cquote. Since cquotes have be deprecated, would you be willing to made it a pullquote? The quotations is too short for a blockquote, the other alternative.

What is wrong with cquote again? I used the cquote format because that quote conveys the main idea/mood of the entire background section. It is my style to start every major section with a cquote of an individual participated the event in order to frame the main ideas of each section. Would blockquotes be a better replacements, like in the article Battle of Osan? Jim101 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I tried a quotation, but it leaves a large white space to the left. Would it be ok to move the picture up and put in a pullquote under it?

I don't exactly understand how quote box works, try it first and we will see. I don't see why cquote would be a problem, considering my earlier GA work on Battle of Chosin Reservoir used the same format. Jim101 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• "n the wake of the UN's successful landing at Inchon and the subsequent destruction of the Korean People's Army (KPA) by mid-1950, the Eighth United States Army crossed the 38th parallel and advanced rapidly towards the Sino-Korean border" - does this mean that in mid-1950, the Eighth United Starts Army crossed the 38th parallel, or was it some time after? (sorry to be such a pest with questions, but I am a general reader unfamiliar with this history.)

Landing and crossing happened around the same time (in a span of a month). Jim101 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

cquotes

• from Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations under Block quotation:

Block quotations

Format a long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags; or use {{quotation}} or {{quote}}.

• Although you quote is not more that four lines, you are formatting it as if it is, as a standalone quote, rather than a pullquote off to the side. Much of this depends on whether you would ever take the article to FAC, where using cquotes as you have is a no-no. I think they look tacky, but they were in vogue in the past and they still exist in older FAs as well. Also, I believe starting sections regularly with quotes is frowned on also, by FAC people. Again, you probably do not care. This is your article so you may do as you want. I was mistakenly thinking I was trying to improve the article, so please forgive me. Xtzou (Talk) 17:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't fret, just a question...I'll remove the cquote then. Jim101 (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A few more comments

Needless to say, this is a comprehensive article and is as clearly written as such a complex article can be. I have only the following nitpicks.

• I removed periods at the end of captions that are not complete sentences, per MoS.

Thanks, I suck at copy editing. Jim101 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actions at Kujang-dong

• "Adding to the confusion, Chinese reconnaissance teams resorted to sweet musics and dancing to lure the Americans into exposing their positions" - this ploy worked?

It did...amazing isn't it? Jim101 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actions at Ipsok

• "and the sharp encounter turned most of the C Company's men missing in action." - is that correct wording?

English is not my native language...can you propose a better wording? Jim101 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Gauntlet

• "The US 1st Cavalry Division would contain the Chinese breakthrough at Pukchang-ni, while the 27th Commonwealth Brigade would secure the road between Kunu-ri and Sunchon." - the use of "would" is usually not necessary. I see that is has been used it previously in the article, but here I don't see the point.

I'll remove it. Jim101 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou (Talk) 21:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I tried a rewording: "and after the sharp encounter most of the C Company's men were missing in action". Or would it be "and after the sharp encounter most of the C Company's men were found missing in action"? Not sure of proper military terminology.

Works for me, thanks. Jim101 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I reinstated the quote by MacArthur, as it just sums up completely how badly they misjudged the situation at the top. (After I read and understood the article I was devastated at how "out to lunch" the American command seemed to be.) But, of course, you are free to remove the quote.

Thanks. If no one objects on NPOV ground, it works. Jim101 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What would be the NPOV grounds? The being home for Christmas thing seems to be a theme of that battle embraced by the UN/American side.

Well, MacArthur later explained that he wasn't serious when he made the "Home-by-Christmas" remark, and that the media/Chinese/President is out to get him. So this is the NPOV ground I'm worrying about. Jim101 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou (Talk) 16:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well the article on Douglas MacArthur has this sourced statement, "Briefly questioned about the Chinese threat by President Truman, MacArthur dismissed it, saying that he hoped to be able to withdraw the Eighth Army to Japan by Christmas, and to release the 2nd Infantry Division for service in Europe in January. He regarded the possibility of Russian intervention as a more serious threat." Sourced to Volume 3 of a book on MacArthur. Xtzou (Talk) 22:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly written

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of the MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! An enlightening article. Xtzou (Talk) 16:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)