Talk:Battle of Chongju (1950)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Battle of Chongju (1950) 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 4, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

Expansion Required - British Army Units Particiaption[edit]

The article needs a subject matter expert in relation to the expansion of the British Army Units participation. Can anyone assist? Regards --Newm30 (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Gday Newm30. AFAIK the British participation was fairly limited as 3RAR was the lead battalion. I have rewritten this one now and have included all the information I can find on the Brits from their official history. Hope this helps. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Chongju (1950)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Staking my claim on what I'm sure will be another interesting account of Australian forces in action during the Cold War... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally got round to the detailed review...


  • No dab or external link issues.
  • Images have alt text.

Aside from my usual copyedit, a few points...

Infobox -- Not sure of standard and not too fussed as long as you're consistent, but we have in Belligerents "United Nations" bolded with a colon, followed by a bulleted list, and then we have in Units Involved "27th Brit Com Bde" unbolded without a colon, followed by a bulleted list. Should be consistent and, personally, I think the latter (unbolded without a colon) works fine.

Yes that makes sense. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearance of the town

  • The following morning the Australians remained in position, finding more than 150 North Korean dead within their defensive positions at daybreak. -- within whose defensive positions, the Australians' or the North Koreans'?
Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile, aerial reconnaissance subsequently reported the presence of North Korean tanks to the west of Chongju. -- "meanwhile" inplies more-or-less simultaneously, while "subsequently" suggests afterwards; can't both be right so choose which is more appropriate and lose the other... ;-)
Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Appears inconsistent representation of numbers, for instance you have "10" and "12" early on, but then "thirty-six" later -- I assume you're trying to stick to the rule of spelling out single-digit numbers and using figures for anything bigger, so perhaps best check throughout to ensure consistency.
Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we know who fired the shells that wounded Green? As written it could be taken as enemy or friendly fire so if we know let's spell it out.
Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool; I put "around dusk" back to the beginning of the sentence because at the end it sounded like a location, not a time... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Images -- all appear appropriately licensed.

Summary -- looks very good, mate, if you can just address the points above I'll be happy to pass. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time and comments. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Tks mate, passing as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)