Talk:Battle of Marilao River

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 27, 2013, March 27, 2018, March 27, 2019, and March 27, 2024.

Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force
	United States military history task force

Tambayan Philippines: History Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Philippine history task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Strength[edit]

The "strength" in the infobox points the name of units in the US side and number of soldiers in the Filipino side. It does not allow comparison of forces. How many people were in the 1st South Dakota Infantry? More or less 5,000 as well? A lot more than that? A lot less than that? And the Filipinos were 5,000... soldiers? It's better to clarify the obvious as if it wasn't. If a side had artillery and the other did not, it should be clear. "No artillery" would be redundant, but "5,000 soldiers" would make that clear (5,000 alone, without nouns, could also be 4,900 soldiers and 100 people operating artillery) Cambalachero (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've tweaked the presentation in the article; please feel free to adjust if you don't agree with my change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

G'day, I have assessed the article as C-class on Milhist's assessment scale. In addition to Cambalachero's point above, I have the following suggestions to take it towards B-class:

the lead should be expanded to summarise the whole article, including the result of the battle;
the American commander, Irving Hale, is mentioned in the infobox but his role is not elaborated upon in the body;
the two American units that are mentioned in the infobox should be introduced in the body of the article. The Dumindin source seems to indicate that seven US regiments attacked initially, and then the 1st South Dakota and 3rd US Artilery were sent in, with the artillery being employed as infantry. These facts seem reasonably important, so they should be included in the body of the article;
in the lead, you mention a river crossing, but this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body;
in the Background section, this should be clarified briefly: "in protest to the reinstatement of the Kawit Battalion". Not all of the readers will have read the previous article, so a small clause clarifying this is probably necessary. For instance, "in protest to the reinstatement of the Kawit Battalion, which Luna had disarmed for insubordination during the earlier fighting around Calcoocan";
this should be clarified as it is not clear what it means: "made great execution";

If you can cover off on these points, I would be happy to re-assess the article as B-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]