Talk:Battle of P'ohang-dong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

Looks good so far, some very minor points though:

• All images have alt text and are appropriately tagged (no action required);
• There are no external links (no action required);
• There is one citation error - {{harvnb|Appleman|1998|p=263}} could be consolidated further as a named ref (I think you may have just missed one);
• There is one dab link (to Carrier) - please rectify this;
• I have made a few tweaks, please check they have not changed your intended meaning and that you are happy with them;
• In the 'North Korean advance' section you use the phrases 'repeatedly pushing back' and then 'pushed back repeatedly'. This is a little repetitive (no pun intended) and should be reworded;
• IMO the 'Forces Involved' heading should be renamed 'Prelude' in keeping with the layout stipulated in WP:MILMOS, so I changed it;
• I think the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the 'UN Counteroffensive' section could probably merged (the 2nd para almost reads like the topic sentence etc of the 3rd, and is quite small so this could be done fairly easily);
• Use of the word enemy should be avoided for POV (see first sentence in the 'UN forces pull back' section); and
• In the 'Aftermath' section 'Many entire units were decimated in the fighting...' seems clumsy and should be re-worded. Anotherclown (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed all of the above. —Ed!^(talk) 14:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Overall, another good article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   No major issues, please see my initial comments.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass On hold until the prose issue and my other points are dealt with, otherwise this is top work. Anotherclown (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed all of the issues. —Ed!^(talk) 14:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Striking all issues now and passing. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)