This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.
Subjective descriptors: Certain subjective terms can be difficult to conceptualize for the reader, without some precedent reference to numbers. In the section Battle of Masan#Outbreak of War, the use of "wiped out" implies >90% KIA; the use of "almost completely destroyed" conveys the idea of 60-90% casualties, as opposed to KIAs only; the reason being that the "destruction" of a unit is often related to the incapacitation of its combat effectiveness, thus the destruction or loss of equipment in addition to the loss of killed, wounded, captured, or missing personnel.
Unit Typo?: In the section Battle of Masan#Outbreak of War, the 24th Infantry Division is referred to (directly) twice, and indirectly several times. I suspect that either the 25th Infantry Division or the 24th Infantry Regiment is meant here, but as it is, it's quite confusing.
A or AN ROK?: In the section Battle of Masan#Battle of Battle Mountain, the 4th para. refers to "an ROK patrol". Shouldn't the article be "a"? I usually hear the acronym "ROK" pronounced "rock", but I understand if you're treating it as an abbreviation, "are-oh-kay". Is there any guideline on this?
All the references to it I've seen in literature refer to "an ROK" so I've tried to just be consistent with them. —Ed!(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Date Format: In the last paragraph of Battle of Masan#Battle of Nam River, the date format switches between a civilian format (September 1) and a military format (5 September).
Like I said, mostly minor stuff. The subject is treated well in an appropriate amount of detail, and due regard is given to the actions of individual units that isn't seen often enough in historical texts. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to everything. Thanks for the review! —Ed!(talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Consistency. Are the belligerents UN or US and South Korea?
Depends on the context. Politically, South Korea was not a part of the UN in 1950, so South Korea and the US had a joint military venture in the battle, per the infobox. But the South Korean troops fell under the United Nations command, per the text. —Ed!(talk) 04:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Casualties. Don't add up with the Aftermath section. I count 1057 killed, 3085 wounded and 20 captured or missing. No South Korean casualties given.
The part on North Korean conscription of South Korean civilians deserves a subsection. Possibly add a couple of sentences on their loyalty, combat value and desertions, possibly comparing these problems to similar problems for the 24th Infantry.
I think this is a good article. The only comment is again on South Korea losses. Probably a quick mentions that some of the 40,000 casualties of the Battle of Pusan occurred there.D2306 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)