Talk:Battle of Masan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Masan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Battle of Masan has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 5, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
September 20, 2011	Good topic candidate	Not promoted
November 26, 2011	WikiProject A-class review	Approved

Current status: Good article

Military history: Asian / Korean / North America / United States / Cold War A‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

A

This article has been rated as A-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Korean military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Korea Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated working groups:
/
	This article is supported by the Korean military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cold War Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Commentary

A good article, definitely B-class. Here are some comments, mostly minor and easily fixed:

Add re-direct links to the first mention of "Task Force Smith" and "burp gun".
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove dead re-direct links that salt the article, esp. the latter half.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective descriptors: Certain subjective terms can be difficult to conceptualize for the reader, without some precedent reference to numbers. In the section Battle of Masan#Outbreak of War, the use of "wiped out" implies >90% KIA; the use of "almost completely destroyed" conveys the idea of 60-90% casualties, as opposed to KIAs only; the reason being that the "destruction" of a unit is often related to the incapacitation of its combat effectiveness, thus the destruction or loss of equipment in addition to the loss of killed, wounded, captured, or missing personnel.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unit Typo?: In the section Battle of Masan#Outbreak of War, the 24th Infantry Division is referred to (directly) twice, and indirectly several times. I suspect that either the 25th Infantry Division or the 24th Infantry Regiment is meant here, but as it is, it's quite confusing.
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A or AN ROK?: In the section Battle of Masan#Battle of Battle Mountain, the 4th para. refers to "an ROK patrol". Shouldn't the article be "a"? I usually hear the acronym "ROK" pronounced "rock", but I understand if you're treating it as an abbreviation, "are-oh-kay". Is there any guideline on this?
- All the references to it I've seen in literature refer to "an ROK" so I've tried to just be consistent with them. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Date Format: In the last paragraph of Battle of Masan#Battle of Nam River, the date format switches between a civilian format (September 1) and a military format (5 September).
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, mostly minor stuff. The subject is treated well in an appropriate amount of detail, and due regard is given to the actions of individual units that isn't seen often enough in historical texts. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I have responded to everything. Thanks for the review! —Ed!^(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Masan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

OK, I will review this article over the next couple of days.

Check list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Lead&Infobox:
- Consistency. Are the belligerents UN or US and South Korea?
  - Depends on the context. Politically, South Korea was not a part of the UN in 1950, so South Korea and the US had a joint military venture in the battle, per the infobox. But the South Korean troops fell under the United Nations command, per the text. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Casualties. Don't add up with the Aftermath section. I count 1057 killed, 3085 wounded and 20 captured or missing. No South Korean casualties given.
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle
- The part on North Korean conscription of South Korean civilians deserves a subsection. Possibly add a couple of sentences on their loyalty, combat value and desertions, possibly comparing these problems to similar problems for the 24th Infantry.
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- T-34 picture. Perhaps change the caption to "T-34 tanks like this one..."
  - Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A map (or even a simple schematic) would help. I do not know Korean geography very well and the battle is difficult to follow for an average reader, who would not read the entire article in detail.
  - Expanded. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath
- Needs expansion. What was wider strategic impact of the battle? How did it affect the Battle of Pusan as a whole?
  - Done. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dab links: 25th Infantry Division, 25th Division, Armored Car, Haman need to be fixed D2306 (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: D2306 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

I think this is a good article. The only comment is again on South Korea losses. Probably a quick mentions that some of the 40,000 casualties of the Battle of Pusan occurred there.D2306 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]