Talk:Battle of Tabu-dong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Battle of Tabu-dong 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.
February 20, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST 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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Korea (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cold War (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Time Format comment[edit]

Time Format[edit]

Article looks great, but I have a question about date and time. If you look at the 3rd paragraph, in the section Battle of Tabu-dong#Further US Withdrawal, the time "03:00" is mentioned, and somewhere nearby is "08:00". This is a mixture of civilian and military time formats. Shouldn't it be one or the other? 3:00, 3:00am, or 3pm, if its civilian format, 0300 or 1500 if it's military time. If you go with military time, then for the sake of consistency, dates should likewise probably be put in military format as well; (23 September 1950, not September 23, 1950). Something of a quibble, I admit, but had to throw it out there for consideration. Does the MilHistoryProject have any guidelines on this? Over. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

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

Reviewer: NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Generally good prose. A couple instances of awkward speech, fixed those.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Battery of well formatted reliable sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Very excellent work here again.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Cropped one of the maps
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Well written article. Unequivocally passes GA criteria, but additional images, and improvement of prose would be required for FA. Also think expansion would be required.