Talk:Battle of Haktang-ni
|WikiProject Belgium||(Rated Start-class)|
I'd be pleased to use other sources if they existed. Given the size of this (in effect) skirmish, there really is nothing I can find except that which I've used on it. Please note that some sources duplicate the article which I've used, but the article I've quoted is the original.-- Brigade Piron (Talk) 10:45, 9 June 2012 (GMT)
- You are closer than you think, since there are only two authoritative source on Belgian combat operations in the Korean War, and you already have one (Crahay's memoir). The one you are missing is Gahide, J. P. Belgium and the Korean War. Brussels: Belgian Center of Military History, 1991. Find that source and your problems will go away. Jim101 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Should the Luxembourg participation be acknowledged in the box? My sources indicate that the majority of Luxembourg troops in 1st contingent returned in September 1951, to be replaced in early 1952. 6 soldiers stayed on, but I believe they were included in the Belgian unit. Does this merit them a special mention?-- Brigade Piron (Talk) 11:00, 9 June 2012 (GMT)
Suggestion for Improvements
This article could have potential to be GA if a dedicated French/Belgian editor is willing to go to the extra mile. I'll outline the improvement items one by one
- Missing overview/description on Operation Commando. The bare minimum should be a rough summary from Truce Tent and Fighting Front about the armistice negotiations from June to October and the overall operation outline, plus a detailed discussion on Belgian deployments during the operations. Right now this article exists in a vacuum outside of the Korean War history, and during my researches on the topic I am convinced that such information must exist on the Belgian side.
- Infobox is overly verbose for no apparent reason. For example, why does the result say: "United Nations military victory; Strategically indecisive" when a simple "United Nations victory" can sum up this battle outcome nicely? The second statement can convey the message "Belgians clearly won the engagement without creating long term ill effect" just as good as the first one. The same goes with Commanders and Leaders for UN side, with ranks (non-essential information) displayed while names themselves (essential information) is abbreviated to just initials.
- There must be a more reliable source than hendrik.atspace.com that conveyed the same information. After all, hendrik.atspace.com must got their information from somewhere else. I not convinced that there are not enough sources available for this article since we have Albert Crahay memoir published, yet Belgian Armed Forces don't even bother to make a peep?
- Belgians Can Do Too! (2011) must provided either a OCLC or ISBN number. I tried worldcat.org but it is not showing up.
- Given that this is a small battle, do not be afraid to add more details on the Belgian side and fear that the article is one sided against the Chinese. As long as there are no outrageous statements like "Belgians wiped Chinese 141st Division off the face of map", "Belgians inflicted over 3,000 Chinese casualties all by themselves", or "Chinese are stupid to attack the Belgians" I doubt it will ever trigger POV alarms.
- US 3rd Infantry Division's participation (or the lack of) in this battle needs to be discussed in detail.