Talk:United Nations Memorial Cemetery
|United Nations Memorial Cemetery has been listed as a Warfare good article under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed.
Review: March 17, 2014. ( ).
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from United Nations Memorial Cemetery appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 March 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United Nations Memorial Cemetery.||
- This review is transcluded from Talk:United Nations Memorial Cemetery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- Okay, I think we're pretty much there. If you can reference the final section, I'm happy to pass at GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
- "As North Korean People's Army forces moved south at the start of the war in June 1950" - as the first section, you need to explain what "the war" is. I'd recommend (NB: not a GA requirement!) that you also explain for the casual reader who the sides were, e.g. "The Korean war broke out in June 1950 between X and Y. As North Korean People's Army forces moved south at the start of the conflict..." - it just makes it really easy for a reader who knows nothing about the topic.
- "were established by United Nations forces in Taejon (9 July 1950), Kwan-ui (Kwan-ni), Kum-chon, and Sindong." - (NB: not a GA requirement) I'd recommend easing the reader in here with something like "in the cities of Taejon..." - it makes it easy to understand if we're talking about provinces, areas, cities etc., particularly if your Korean geography is as bad as mine.
- "Pusan" - could be linked (to Busan)
- "with a Busan cemetery being " - be consistent in whether this is Pusan or Busan.
- " When battles took place in North Korea" - "As the fighting pushed into North Korea..." might be more accurate
- "Sukehon (Sonchon County)... Pupchong (Pukchong County)" - I'd recommend creating pages for Sukehon and Pupchong, and redirecting them to the County pages for now; this would be quite useful generally, and would also mean you wouldn't need the bracketed info here.
- " in Yokohama, Japan" - comma needed after Japan
- "The 108th platoon was configured as the 114th Graves Registration Company and " - I'd suggest "reconfigured", and it probably could do with a comma here after "and". If you wanted, you could loose the "108th", as its clear which platoon is being referred to.
- "allied and American soldiers " - should allied be "Allied", as it's a specific alliance?
- "When UN forces launched the Inchon Invasion in September 1950, a platoon from the 565th Graves Registration Company participated" - "participated" could mean several things. if you went for (e.g.) "accompanied them", it would be clearer.
- "Besides battlefield conditions that included unexploded ordnance and booby-traps, the rugged geography and climate of North and South Korea added to the difficulty of burial and recovery of remains." I'd recommend reversing this sentence, e.g. "It was difficult to recover remains and conduct burials in Korea, due to the rugged geography and harsh climate, and the threat of unexploded ordnance and booby-traps." - it brings the verb to the front. I'd also move this sentence to the end of the paragraph, to avoid breaking up the flow.
- "Following the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement in July 1953, the Military Armistice Commission" - I'd explain that it was the United Nation's Military Armistice Commission. I'm presuming though it didn't try to reclaim all bodies, just non-North Korean ones?
- " the resulting exchange of casualties, dubbed Operation Glory," - might be worth double-checking the source here. A casualty doesn't need to be dead; if the source uses this, fine, if not I'd recommend being more precise.
- I think the context works well. Instead of using "remains" or "bodies" constantly, casualties is thrown in and it's clear we're talking about the dead. The remains were often skeletal, so "body" is not always a good term. (I may have tweaked this sentence, but don't recall for sure. Tell me if you'd like it changed some more.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- " It was officially established by the United Nations " - what does "officially established" mean, given that it had already been established? It reads a bit oddly (compared to, perhaps, "officially taken over by", or "officially adopted by", or something like that)
- " In 1973, the only United Nations cemetery in the world" - if it was always the only cemetery, I'd put that at the beginning of the para, otherwise it sort of implies there might have been others that closed or changed ownership before 1973.
- " The Commission is composed of representatives" - there's a change of tense here (from past to current); not a GA requirement, but I'd have stuck with the past.
- "The 2,300 graves in the cemetery are set out in 22 sites designated by the nationalities of the buried servicemembers." This felt like it was part of a physical description of the site, and didn't fit well with the history. Would it fit better at the start of the memorials section? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- "Laid out over 35 acres, the graves are set out in 22 sites designated by the nationalities of the buried servicemembers" I'd normally expect to see anything in the lead in the main text as well - this seems to just be in the lead.
- Not strictly a GA requirement, but metric equivalents would be good (e.g. for "35 acres"). You can do this easily with the convert template, e.g. 35 acres (14 ha).
- In an ideal world, the list of memorials would be fleshed out in time to become prose, but I can't see any sources to do that with, so a list seems suitable for now. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
- For ACR, I'd be looking for a common referencing style (e.g. some of the webpages have link, author, date etc. - some just the link), but this isn't a strict GA requirement. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
- The section "Notable graves" could do with some sort of references - it's currently all uncited. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
- "Temporary battlefield cemeteries and remains recovery" section - anything we can say about the North Koreans here? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're looking for. Do you mean recovery of nK remains or what the nKs did to recover remains? I'll cogitate. At present, though, I don't have refs which cover either aspect. (I'm awaiting a journal article which may help.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- The burial of nK & Chinese soldiers is a bit off-topic, but I've added reference to the fact that many of them were repatriated as part of Operation Glory. – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- Mostly fine. File:UN Memorial Cemetery.JPG may have an issue, though. It is tagged to cover the photograph, but probably also needs a tag to cover the underlying cemetery monument, which I think would be unique enough to carry its own copyright (NB: we could get a second opinion over at the Commons if you disagree). One problem is that South Korea doesn't have commercial freedom of panorama - see here - which might make this difficult under South Korean law. The monument is probably okay under US law, given its pre-1978 date, depending on whether a copyright notice was filed or not (see more on the linked page). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- We could leave a message at Commons:Village pump/Copyright? They're pretty good with this sort of issue. Happy to do so myself if you like? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers. Might need more investigation if this goes to ACR, but happy to accept the absence of comment as no serious objection at the Commons. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- "The grounds today." - doesn't need the final period under the MOS (it's not a complete sentence). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Tanggok v. Busan clarification
The various sources I see suggest that Busan and Tanggok are a final collection point for remains. It is not clear that these are two separate locations. The present location of the cemetery is on a peninsula that juts out north-east of the main Busan harbor. With that in mind, I cannot see that it is on the lines of communication that one would expect. At the same time, Tanggok is not clearly defined on various maps. The Dutch Wikipedia shows it in the same location as the Busan location. But the Dutch WP is non-sourced, and I would expect remains to be taken to a railhead or road terminal. So I am not sure one way or the other. With that in mind, I've written the article with an eye towards using Tanggok as a collection point and Busan as the final burial cite. To add to the mystery, it seems that various individual memorials at the UNMCK website have pdf copies of the burial and casualty reports for casualties now buried at UNMCK. I have not used these reports as sources in the article IOT avoid OR. (In fact, I have not looked at these burial reports recently. As I recall, various burial reports refer to Tanggok as a collection point, thus indicating that the present UNMCK was the final destination.) With these factors in mind, I think GA status (and perhaps a DYK listing) will stimulate some interest in the UNMCK and thereby help in clarification. Overall, though, I do not think this is a critical editing issue. The article is, IMO, well sourced and neutrally presents the important information – that this is the only UN cemetery in the world and that the young men who are buried there should get a little WP attention. – S. Rich (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think I've answered my own question. Tanggok and the UNMC are the same place. In looking at these maps of the area:  and  show a US War Department/Navy map from 1946 which has Tanggok exactly were the UNMC is located. I shall revise the text to clarify. – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)