Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 21:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • no dab links, no issues with ext links, images have alt text (no action required);
    • images appear correctly licenced (no action required);
    • I couldn't see any glaring MOS issues, but I might have missed something;
    • I'm not sure if it is the difference between US English and Australian/British English, but I found that some of the prose was a little abrupt in places or seemed to be missing linking clauses. I didn't attempt to fix in case I changed the variation, however, can I suggest maybe asking someone with a knowledge of US English to copyedit the article?
    • in the lead, "...pushing them back after several days' fight" (I think "several days' fight" should be "...several days of fighting")
    • in the lead, "...Suffering supply and casualty problems of its own." (the "of its own" implies that some other unit also suffered supply and casualty problems, but you don't seem to mention this. I suggest just removing the "of its own" clause);
    • in the lead you use the abbreviation "UN" without formally introducing it. I think you should add "(UN)" beside "United Nations" in the third paragraph;
    • other abbreviations need to be formally introduced, e.g. "ROK" etc.
    • in the Organization section, "equally distributed in six" ("distributed" and "in" don't seem to agree - perhaps "distributed across six" or "organized in six"?);
    • in the Outbreak section, "Around 0400 on June 25, the NK 5th Division began its first attacks on the ROK 10th Regiment in forward positions." (who was in forward positions? Perhaps this might be reworded thusly: "...the NK 5th Division began its first attacks on the ROK 10th Regiment, falling upon their forward positions")
    • in the Advance section, "...NK 5th Division continued south in a slow advance south " (repeated word "south");
    • in the Destruction section, "...replacements and conscripts..." (replacements and conscripts implies a difference, surely conscripts were also replacements);
      • The 2,000 were both regular army recruited from North Korea and civilians forcibly conscripted into the NKPA from South Korean land. I have tried to clarify this. —Ed!(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Unit 588" - is this the correct presentation? It seems inconsistent with "766th Unit" due to the lack of ordinal suffix and the word "Unit" appearing first). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!(talk) 16:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Well done. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have much time on wikipedia these days, but absolutely FANTASTIC work Ed! for creating such a good article on an army we don't usually hear about. Congrats; this makes one part of the history of the Korean People's Army clearer. Only thing I would say is that you should tie in the article, mentioning it at 12th Division (North Korea) and Korean People's Army Ground Force articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs)
    • Thank you for the copyedit. I have added this unit to both the NKPA and the NK 12th Division pages. —Ed!(talk) 17:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • I made a few tweaks, please check that you are happy with them;
    • The citation error tool reports that the named ref 'Millett195' is used multiple times (fairly minor issue though);
    • Some issues with the references I think: specifically do you have the place of publishing for Alexander, Appleman, Millet x 2 and Rottman?
    • This sentence in the lead seems a little awkward to me and I'm not sure of its exact meaning: "Trained extensively in amphibious warfare and unconventional warfare, the 766th Regiment troops were considered special forces commando units." Should it be "the 766th Regiment was considered a special forces commando unit"?
    • Is the punctuation used in the 2nd para of the 'Origins' section correct - "June, 1950" or should it just be June 1950?
      • According to American English either is acceptable. —Ed!(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence in the 'Advance' section is a little repetative: "Because of the rugged terrain of the eastern regions of Korea, difficulty with communications and resupply made it difficult for South Korean troops to put up effective resistance." (specifically use of difficulty and difficult in the same sentence).
    • The 2nd paragraph in the 'Advance' section is stubby and could probably be linked with the one below it.
    • This sentence seem repeative (in last para of 'Resistance' section): "The 766th Unit specialized in raiding UN supply lines, and effectively mounted small disruptive attacks on UN supplies to equip themselves" (specifically UN supply lines and UN supplies).
    • In 2nd para of the 'Destruction' section you wrote: "The town was strategically important because it was one of the few direct routes through the mountains and into the plain." Maybe you could say which plain this is?
    • This sentence seems problematic: "Upon doing this August 19, the unit ceased to exist." There may be a few missing words here I think.
      • Done. —Ed!(talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overall though this is an excellent article and I intend to support once these issues are dealt with. Anotherclown (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments. I'm looking for any input. I don't have as much experience with battlefield articles, so I think I'll start out asking more questions and making fewer edits directly to the article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a better way to say "Suffering ... casualty problems"? This might be a common expression, but feels a little euphemistic to me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disbanded by being absorbed": disbanded and absorbed, maybe. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "designed to be a scalable unit which would vary in size": designed to vary in size, maybe. If "scalable" is a technical term you want the reader to know, do you have a link for it? - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the regiment was immediately reduced to 2,500 before the war started when all of its 3rd Battalion was lost as its transport was sunk in Pusan harbor.": In general, it's easier for the reader to digest if you lead with the details and then give any ramifications that the readers can't figure out on their own: "All 500 men of the 3rd Battalion were lost just before the war started when their transport sank was sunk in Pusan harbor." - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC) ...(I mean in any one sentence ... a topic sentence can be useful when the readers won't be able to figure out where the paragraph is going without one.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC) corrected myself: you had it right, "was sunk". 13:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the North Korean leadership began to create large numbers of commando and special forces units to send south. These units would subvert South Korean authority with terror campaigns, sabotage and the inducement of rebellions.": I'm sorry, I haven't studied the Korean War, and I'm lost here. If elements of this regiment were actually sent south before the war began and successfully incited rebellions, that seems to me to need some discussion and citation. If they didn't, then "would" is the wrong word, since many readers will interpret it as the future-in-past tense, that is, they'll deduce that all this actually happened. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still not following. Did they induce rebellions before the war started, or just train for it? After the war started, were they effective at the 3 things you mention? - Dank (push to talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay I think I follow, I went with "subverted South Korean authority before and during the war", revert me if that's wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this time, the unit was expanded in size to 3,000 men in six battalions.": We seem to generally avoid repeating information (except in the lead section, of course), but I don't really have an opinion; anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prepared for the attack ... loaded into ships in preparation for the attack.": maybe delete "in preparation for the attack". - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More problems with "would". This would (grin) be a good time to cover all the bases, because it seems to come up a lot in MILHIST articles:
  • "North Korean forces would number 17,000. This would mean they would outnumber ...": This is the future-in-past tense, and it's the wrong tense here. "The 17,000 North Korean troops outnumbered ..."
  • "The regiment was split into three groups for the attack. Three battalions would act as spearheads for the 5th Division on land while two more battalions would conduct the landings in Imwonjin. This 2,500 man force would then lead the North Korean units south.": Okay, now the future-in-past is technically the right tense, because you've got a narrative going and you're referring to future events before resuming the narrative at the time you left off. But it's always best to rewrite when possible to insert events in the order they actually occurred, and stick with the past tense.
  • "... sending strong reconnaissance parties into the mountains to ensure they would not be threatened ...": this would is "conditional", so it's fine; if they didn't do something, something else would happen.
    • My intent was, indeed, for it to be conditional. —Ed!(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Perimeter. Unbeknownst to the UN forces, the 766th and the 5th Division were to be part of a flanking maneuver that would envelop UN troops and push them back to Pusan.": ... Perimeter, including a flanking maneuver by the 766th and the 5th Division to envelop UN troops and push them back to Pusan. I left off the "part of" because it's best to list all the significant forces. Avoid Unbeknownst in AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the rugged terrain of the eastern regions of Korea, poor communication equipment and resupply lines made it difficult for South Korean troops to put up effective resistance.": The rugged terrain of the eastern regions of Korea, poor communication equipment, and unreliable resupply lines thwarted the South Korean resistance. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "caused the division heavy losses to air attacks still": Sorry? - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With only the support of one of the 5th Division's regiments": with the support of only one ... - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for now. It's well written, and I can support after the above issues are addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've responded to everything. —Ed!(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Support. Nicely done. - Dank (push to talk) 05:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments This is a very detailed and interesting article, and it's good to see so much work on a relatively obscure North Korean unit. I'm close to supporting, but have the following comments:
    • Given that the regiment was a tactical unit which was fully committed to the war, it's unlikely that its headquarters remained at Hoeryong as the second sentence implies - am I right in thinking that this was its peacetime base?
      • That's correct, though the unit's HQ was at Hoeryong for 14 of its 16 months of existence. Its permanent facilities were at Hoeryong. —Ed!(talk) 04:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Upon creation, the generically named 766th Unit was designed to be a scalable unit which would vary in size, consisting of a number of smaller units capable of acting alone." is a bit confusing
    • Do we know what the nationality of the 'United Nations ships' which destroyed the 3rd Battalion were? They were almost certainly South Korean or US.
    • Is there a reason for the regiment being referred to as the '766th Unit' in the 'Resistance' and 'Destruction' sections? (was it designated after it dropped below regimental strength?) Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • For consistency's sake, another user requested I refer to it as the "766th Unit" since that was North Korea's official initial name for the unit. However books refer to it as both the 766th Unit and the 766th Regiment, so the terms are interchangeable. —Ed!(talk) 04:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Using the two different names interchangeably is rather confusing - I'd strongly suggest that you stick with just one name after explaining that this unit had two different designations. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I did that and someone else suggested I change it to the way it is now. Is there some MOS standard I can consult for this in the future? —Ed!(talk) 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME is probably the closest thing. I think that the issue here is consistency though - it's confusing to have the same unit called different things (and switching back to 'unit' after calling this a 'regiment' suggests that it was redesignated during the war, which doesn't seem to have been the case). Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK. I have now standardized all but the first reference to "766th Regiment" —Ed!(talk) 01:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now addressed; great work with this article Ed. Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/766th_Independent_Infantry_Regiment_(North_Korea)&oldid=1136064881"