Talk:3rd Ranger Infantry Company (United States)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this article because I'm now interested in this war. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

when was Thomas Taylor's book published. The sources say 1996, but the footnote says 1998.

Origins

"The United States (U.S.) and United Nations (UN) began an intervention campaign to prevent South Korea from collapsing. " - maybe should explain what this "intervention campaign" was - apparently the troops are being "pushed back" from a "line" or a border?
- Added a link at the top for background. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"From there, the U.S. and UN saw a steady stream of defeats until they had been pushed back to the Pusan Perimeter by August." - do you mean something like, "From then on" or something?
- Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"North Korean agents began to infiltrate behind UN lines and attack military targets and cities" - where was this line?
- It just refers to the generic UN front lines, as far as "lines" are conventionally considered. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Pusan Perimeter" - what is this?
- The link explains the perimeter, there isn't an article on the perimeter by itself. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"North Korean special forces units like the NK 766th Independent Infantry Regiment had seen great success in defeating ROK troops" - just a clumpsy sentence that needs clearer wording - and perhaps too much detail (does the reader need to know the names of the NK regiments?
- Well, that Regiment is specifically covered as a commando unit which caused extensive problems for the UN. It was North Korea's special forces unit. Rewordrd the sentence. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the Eighth United States Army" - should be linked at first mention
- Done. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what is the significance of the Eighth US Army?
- It was in command of all UN forces in Korea. Added in. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section needs paragraphs. It is to big a block of text to hit the reader with.
- Done. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is hard to understand because there is much detail but little overall context. I think if you followed the info in the lede, and added context for that in the article, it would be easier to follow. As it is, the lede sounds clear, but under "Origins" there seems to be a level of detail without an overall context. The lede is meant to be a concise summary of the article, but not a substitution for providing context in the article. Perhaps it would help to organize "Origins" in paragraphs, each addressing a subject. e.g. "background", "how US and UN became involved", "original success of North Korean People's Army", "significant battles and outcomes" "creation of elite units by US" etc. (I'm not familiar enough to know how to organize this.)
- I've been criticized lately in A-class and Featured Article reviews for putting in too much of that kind of stuff, which people say belongs on other articles. I'm very hesitant to add in things about the War in general which don't relate to this unit directly; I've done quite a few articles on Korean War battles and added them in there. The seealso link to Initial Phase of the Korean War should solve this, however. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some detail seems unnecessary and distracts from the topic: e.g. "All U.S. Army Ranger units had been disbanded after World War II because they required time-consuming training, specialization, and expensive equipment." Maybe if there were a section on the history of Ranger Units, it would fit there.
- The Korean War Ranger Companies article should/will have more on that; thus it avoids adding the same unnecessary context to each individual company article. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, topics, jargon etc. need to be explained before they are used e.g. "Pusan Perimeter" as noted above.
- Explained Pusan Perimeter. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Organization" - I think this should focus on the topic, the 3rd Ranger Infantry Company (United States).
- Well...it does. The first sentence mentions the Eighth Army Ranger Company, but the rest focuses on this unit's makeup. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same with "History" - "While the 1st, 2nd and 4th Ranger Company each embarked for Korea shortly after their training was complete, the 3rd Ranger Company was retained at Fort Benning, to train the next cycle of Rangers, the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Ranger Company. - is it necessary to include all these other companies? Isn't there some overall article that explains this?
- No. Each company will eventually have its own article on its operations, though the context and things that relate to the companies overall belong on Korean War Ranger companies. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The companies were known to frequently get into fights with US Marines onboard the troopship while en route. They spent most of the month in Yokohama, Japan training and preparing for the front lines." - how is this relevant? It doesn't seem to go anywhere.
- Reworded it a little better. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Context needed. e.g. although Channon is originally mention under "Formation and training", "Channon" is not mentioned again until the middle of "Bloody Nose Ridge" where it says "Tidwell and Channon split the company into two forces which attempted to move along the ridge." Channon suddenly becomes the main figure - so the reader must use "Find" to discover who "Channon" is. He is Captain Channon, right? - then he is never mentioned again in the article (as far as I can determine).
- Policy is not to use rank and first name only after first reference. After that, it becomes redundant. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since they were formed in 1950 and deactivated in 1951, my advice is to focus on what they did, what their impact was in that short period of time.

Please feel free to discuss my comments with me as I could be way off base.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to each of your points. Thanks for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, I fixed your footnote problem. You didn't respond above, whether Taylor was published in 1996 or 1998. I settled on 1996 since that's what you had in your "Citations". Here are the fixes [1]] MathewTownsend (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

c. no original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
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:
Pass

Article passes GA review. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]