Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [1].

766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)[edit]

Featured article candidates/766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)/archive1

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. It is both a Good Article and an A-Class Article at WP:MILHIST. —Ed!^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1abcde, 2abc, 4 I really like Ed's series on Korea. I remember this unit from Norm Korger's Operational Art of War. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding plagiarism: Ed! cites at the sentence level, yet there is a coherent and cohesive authorial voice flowing through the text. As such, from textual analysis of style I can't see plagiarism here. Additionally, there are idiosyncratic editorial, style, and formatting errors remaining in the text indicating that it was written freshly. Given the coherent voice, I can't see how close paraphrasing could have occurred here.
Yes, the article was written freshly from the sources presented. Each one of them had such a small and varied account of its actions it was difficult to piece together on my own. Given FAC's recent plagarism concerns I don't think you'll have a problem with this one. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward, "inducement of rebellions"
Reworded. —Ed!^(talk)

Distant verb "The North Korean plan was for the 766th "..."to conduct amphibious landings ", change ... "was to conduct"
Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak, consider neutrality, 766 is "coercing South Korean villagers" whereas "ROK troops mustered a civilian militia"
The texts seem to imply the North Koreans forced the civilians to work for them, while the South Koreans were inundated with volunteers wanting to help. Still I have worded it so both sides "mustered" civilians. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive missing "At the same time the North Korean units" > "units'"
Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in characterisation, city or village, "the village of P'ohang, creating a state of alarm in the city" "The town"
Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double period: "around the town.[40]."
Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. No ELs at all, actually. --Pres N 19:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

Not convinced "Destruction" is an appropriate heading for the final section -- the unit was reduced to half strength and then merged with another but I don't that counts as "destruction". Perhaps simply "Disbandment" is better, or even "Dismemberment" if you want something more dramatic.
- Agreed. I like "disbandment" better. Changed. —Ed!^(talk) 07:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same section, you say By this time, the 766th had been reduced to 1,500 men, half its original strength. and then a couple of sentences later The division was reduced to 1,500 men in the fighting. -- duplication of info?
- Actually, not in this instance. The first reference is that the 766th Unit was down to 1,500 men. The second reference refers to the NK 12th Division, which had also been reduced to 1,500 men after P'ohang-dong. —Ed!^(talk) 07:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it does -- temporary blindness on my part... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that it looks very good -- structure, prose, coverage, referencing, and supporting materials appear to satisfy FA criteria.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it's a week old, so too late to do anything about this, but someone should have noticed that the nominator had another FAC archived right before this nomination, so should have waited two weeks, per the WP:FAC instructions-- just a reminder for next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment the unit strengths gets confusing; the para prior establishes the unit has a strength of 1500 then its followed by this para

Exhausted and out of supplies, the 766th Regiment moved to Pihak-san, a mountain 6 miles (9.7 km) north of Kigye, to join the shattered NK 12th Division. The division was reduced to 1,500 men in the fighting. In order to rebuild it, 2,000 army replacements and South Korean conscripts were brought in, and the 766th Regiment was ordered to merge its remaining troops into the depleted regiments of the division. Upon completing the merge with the division on August 19, the 766th Regiment ceased to exist. It had trained for close to 14 months prior to the war but fought for less than two.[6][47] 1500 men in the unit on the 17th joined the 12th division and theres still 1500 men. I thinks it would make more sense if it was changed to something like ...to join the shattered NK 12th Division which had been reduced to 1,500 men in the fighting. In order to rebuild the division..... It in the context of the article is the 766th not the 12th division but in this para I think the use of it crosses between both. Gnan garra 11:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 met, Images are all free, subnational flags properly labeled, maps have appropriate keys and captions. Job well done! Fasach Nua (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job improving this Ed! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.