Talk:Battle of Pusan Perimeter logistics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Logistics at the Battle of Pusan Perimeter links to 10 different disambiguation pages:

• Ashiya
• Far East Air Force
• Far East Command
• Hakata
• Han River
• Moji
• Oxcart
• Rice cake
• Sasebo
• VHF radio

Comments

1. In the intro, or somewhere, can you defined ROK for readers who may not be familiar with the abbreviation?
   • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
2. The background section is okay, but could focus more on logistical issues
   • Well, I assumed the context of the war itself was more important. Anyway, the logistics sections basically explain all of the logistics up to this point in the war, so the logistical background is there. —Ed!^(talk) 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Could you add something about the preparation and movement of the 2nd Division from Fort Lewis to Pusan?
   • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. The paragraph in "Challenges" on food is good. Could you include one on ammunition too?
   • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
5. And something about tanks?
   • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
6. "General Earle E. Partridge" should be "Major General Earle E. Partridge"
   • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Could you add a section on medical support?
   • I've been looking around and I can't find a lot of info on medical equipment movement in my sources. —Ed!^(talk) 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
     • Health care support is an aspect of military logistics. I was expecting you to reach for the medical volumes. I'm going to wave it past for now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
8. "Still, the inefficiency of North Korean logistics" Since this does not contradict the previous paragraph, suggest deleting "Still"
   • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Good article! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I think have responded to everything. —Ed!^(talk) 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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: