I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 00:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment This is a rather skillful piece of writing, given that mistreatment of US POW is a hot button issue that is seldom understood by the public. Just one comment, I quote Mahoney, Kevin (2001), Formidable Enemies: the North Korean and Chinese Soldier in the Korean War, Novato, CA: Presidio Press, ISBN9780891417385, page 106: "Some North Koreans, no doubt, resented the presences of foreign troops in a conflict that they viewed as a strictly Korean affair, and their feelings could have found an outlet in executions of American prisoners." Given that Mahoney's comment is more of a general overview of all the POW executions carried out during the war, do you think his comment is relevant in this case? Jim101 (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I mean, I tend to look at that as more of an "educated opinion." It's difficult to confirm that sentiment existed, and I was trying to be neutral and avoid such explanations, which I fear would come off as fringe theories. —Ed!(talk) 06:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Just checking...for the record the idea of "America supports Japan to re-dominate Asia" are extremely powerful and popular within NK and Chinese society at that time. Anyway, it's just something you may want to take a look if you have the time. I support this article. Jim101 (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Some minor comments / recommendations:
Leade: There is reference to a "Pair of memorials" - this is explained in the last section of the article. But one continually wonders why there was a "pair" - perhaps its better to simply refer to "memorials" rather than a "pair of memorials" in the leade.
Ed, I think you forgot to save this edit, but its not a major issue! Farawayman (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Support subject to above. Farawayman (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I have corrected everything you suggested. —Ed!(talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC).
Good show! Unqualified SupportFarawayman (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment Some minor comments:
In summary, I thought it was an admirable attempt to neutrally cover a difficult military episode. A few detailed points...
"Five North Korean divisions amassed to oppose the UN at Taegu, from south to north, the 10th, 3rd, 15th, 13th, 1st Divisions occupied a line from Tuksong-dong and around Waegwan to Kunwi." - I thought the comma after Taegu might usefully be a semi-colon (but my grammar's not great!).
"At this point, the force on the hill was cut off from the rest of the American force." - pedantic, but wasn't it cut off as of 08:30 in the previous sentence but one?
Reordered sentences. —Ed!(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"Later in the morning the platoon heard tank motors and saw two North Korean T-34s followed by 200 or more enemy soldiers on the road below them." Does this imply that there were potentially more than two T-34s? Also, the word "motors" might be redundant. (e.g. could this say "Later in the morning the platoon saw two North Korean T-34s followed by 200 or more enemy soldiers on the road below them."?)
"The 4th Company, 2nd Battalion, 206th Mechanized Infantry Regiment of the NK 105th Armored Division were the captors." - could this read "They were captured by the 4th company, 2nd battalion..."?
Reworded. —Ed!(talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"The original captors did not retain possession of the prisoners throughout the next two days." This read slightly oddly to me. Do you mean "continuous possession"? (i.e. they continued to guard the prisoners, but not continuously?")
The infobox says "Attack type: Massacre." However, it was not an attack, it was an execution (neutral language) or a massacre (the common term). Cs32enTalk to me 00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. I think I have responded to everything you addressed. —Ed!(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This looks quite well put together. I feel the prose could use some copyediting, however, which I'm happy to supply -- probably quicker than noting things down here. Naturally if I accidentally alter any meaning, feel free to revert... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Completed my copyedit and pretty close to supporting, but like to see comments by other editors above acknowledged first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to all of the above concerns you didn't address. Thank you for your help! —Ed!(talk) 18:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Tks, looks good to me -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks, but it looks okay to me. Well done. A few tech comments for the sake of the review:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.