Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of the Samichon River/GA1

< Talk:Battle of the Samichon River
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Anotherclown in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 03:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Progression edit

  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review edit

  • no dabs found by the tools;
  • ext links all work;
  • the images lack alt text. Its not a requirement, but you might consider adding it in if you want to take it higher [3].

Criteria edit

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  • in the Background section, this might need some clarification: "Operation Commando proved to be one of the last..." (maybe a brief clause outlining what Operation Commando was, as it is difficult for the lay reader to see the connection, I think);
    • The Battle of Maryang San occurred during Operation Commando. I've tweaked the language ever so slightly in the hope that this will be a bit clearer now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • there is a little redundancy here: "Operation Little Switch on 20 April, including five sick and wounded Australians" (specifically "sick and wounded", due to it being stated in the sentence previously);
  • "returning to the small scale raids" (I think it should be "small-scale", per the Macquarie dictionary);
  • "Loss of The Hook would the UN forces to withdraw nearly 8 kilometres (5.0 mi)" (I think there is a missing word here);
  • "repulsing the first Chinese an attempt in late-March 1952" (I think there is a typo here);
  • "The peace talks resumed in early July as Rhee's position apparently softened yet this" (probably need a FANBOYS comma before "yet");
  • "occupied by the Australians had been badly damage by the Chinese" (typo - should be "damaged");
  • "Small clashes occurred on 15/16, 21/22, 22/23 and 23/24 July" - were these night clashes? If so you might say: "Small clashes occurred on the nights of 15/16, 21/22, 22/23 and 23/24 July...";
  • In the image caption: "A US Navy F9F Panther over Korea, similar to those used during the fighting." This might sound better as: "A US Navy F9F Panther, similar to those used during the fighting at the Samichon River, over Korea.
  • "with the Chinese subjecting C and D Company, 2 RAR" (I think this should be: "with the Chinese subjecting C and D Companies, 2 RAR");
  • This is not a MOS issue, but you might want to make the short cites clickable. Currently they are hyperlinked, but they don't go anywhere. In order to have them highlight the source, you need to add "|ref=CITEREFSmith2004" (e.g. only) to entries in the References. For an example take a look at how it has been done at the "37th Battalion (Australia)" article. I think this doesn't work if viewing in IE, though.
  • "and for a while even temporarily occupied crest" (missing word before crest?);
  • "3,000 Chinese troops had assaulted the front held by US 1st Marine Division" (probably needs "the" in front of "US 1st Marine Division");
  • "with the New Zealander gunners firing another" (not sure about "New Zealander gunners" - perhaps "New Zealand gunners". In the Aftermath you use "New Zealand gunners");
  • "As with the first night, indirect fire had again played a crucial role in the defence" (the link for "indirect fire" should probably be removed from here and placed earlier in the article);
  • in the Aftermath: "concentrated artillery fire and the wastefulness of massed attacks by infantry against concentrated firepower" (a bit repetitive - concentrated). Perhaps: "concentrated artillery fire and the wastefulness of employing massed attacks by infantry against it";
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  • No issues.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  • No issues.
  • No issues.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  • No issues.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned):   b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):   d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:  
  • No issues.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:  
  • Generally looks good to me. I've made a few tweaks which you might want to check. Also, I've listed a few copyediting issues above which I think should be addressed. Otherwise looks good for GA, to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Your changes look good. I've made a couple of subsequent tweaks. Looks good to go, IMO, now. Good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much for taking the time to read over this, much appreciated. Some very good points. Cheers for the copy-edit too. Anotherclown (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Samichon_River/GA1&oldid=462079556"