Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of P'ohang-dong

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.

Battle of P'ohang-dong[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Support: minor nitpicking and confusion

  • "Walker chose not to heavily reenforce the area...", aside from the typo, you may want to explain Walker's rank and position in his first appearance in the article.
  • You may want to mention the Taebaek Mountains in your terrain description, if possible. This terrain feature had dominated the planning of pretty much every battle in the Korean War up to the stalemate period.
  • "NK 8th Division's 3rd Regiment was nearly destroyed by South Korean forces immediately, forcing its 2nd Regiment to attempt to relieve it, resulting in at least 700 casualties for the North Koreans." Unclear wording, did the 3rd Regiment suffered 700 casualties due to the fighting, or the 2nd Regiment suffered 700 casualties while trying to reach the 3rd Regiment? Jim101 (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this fighting was so heavy that the NK 8th Division was forced to hold its ground a week before trying to advance. Stalled again by South Korean resistance, it was forced to halt again to wait for reinforcements.[30]" I'm a bit confused, how many times did the South Koreans stalled the North Koreans? There was only one fight, but the North Koreans got stalled twice/thrice?
  • "It was apparent to the UN forces that the ROK 3rd Division held the road 20 miles north of P'ohang-dong but that there were no defenses inland in the mountains and North Korean units had penetrated there." I'm guessing you were trying to say that North Koreans penetrated the rear of the ROK 3rd Division. Can you reword and breakdown the sentence a little to reduce confusion?
  • "By August 19 the North Korean forces had completely withdrawn from the offensive and into the mountains in retreat." Did you mean "withdrawn from the offensive and retreated into the mountains"?

I have to say your Pusan Perimeter project is one heck of an accomplishment. Another question, do you need a new campaign box for the project? Jim101 (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Embarrassing omission on my part: Uhm, upon further digging, I just caught a major omission in the article content...I have to withdrew my support until this is resolved.

Quote the article Battle of Pusan Perimeter:

In the east, the North Korean army, 89,000 men strong, had advanced into South Korea in six columns, catching the Republic of Korea Army by surprise, resulting in a complete rout. The smaller South Korean army suffered from widespread lack of organization and equipment, and it was unprepared for war.[9] Numerically superior, North Korean forces destroyed isolated resistance from the 38,000 South Korean soldiers on the front before it began moving steadily south.[10] Most of South Korea's forces retreated in the face of the invasion. By June 28, the North Koreans had captured South Korea's capital of Seoul, forcing the government and its shattered forces to retreat further south.[11] Though it was steadily pushed back, South Korean forces increased their resistance further south hoping to delay North Korean units as much as possible. North and South Korean units sparred for control of several cities, inflicting heavy casualties on one another. The Republic of Korea Army forces defended Yongdok fiercely before being forced back. They performed well in the Battle of Andong in repelling North Korean advances.[12]

Given that the P'ohang-dong Battle is located at the Eastern sector of the Korean War, is there a reason why this passage was not incorporated in the background? Jim101 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I completely forgot about that paragraph, my apologies. I've been trying to keep the concurrent pusan perimeter battles uniform in terms of the background I provide for the battle, but I would agree this entire graph is necessary in the P'ohang-dong article. I have added it to the background section. —Ed!(talk) 03:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: (I suddenly find out that I'll be losing internet connection for a week, so I have to get to the point here) The background section may need a weight check on the fact that the P'ohang-dong Battle is located at the Eastern sector, while most of the backgrounds deals with actions on the Korean War Western sector. After going through many Korean War books, the general rule of thumb is that any Korean War battles on the scale of Pusan Perimeter is normally broken into two sectors under semi-independent commands, usually the ROK Army guarding the Eastern sector while the US Army guarding the western sector. While the events on the two sectors influence each other, transportation problems caused by the mountains in central Korean made sure that battles and events in the Eastern sector are often happening independent of the Western sector, and vice versa. Thus a lack of examination on events happening to the east of the 24th Infantry Division during the war opening, particularly the effects of the Yongdok and Andong battles to the entire Korean War and how the northern side of the Pusan Perimeter was set up does not put this battle into proper context.

It is in my opinion that the background material on the battles fought by the 24th Infantry Division needs to be significantly trimmed, due to the fact that this division's action has no direct effect on the North Korean units attacking towards P'ohang-dong. The events that actually led to the P'ohang-dong battle, which are the central mountain and the east coast fighting described at page 101-108 and at page 182-190 in Appleman's book needs to be significantly expanded. Jim101 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see what I can do. You'll have to give me a few days, though. —Ed!(talk) 13:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the US Army background trimmed out sufficiently? —Ed!(talk) 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little rewrite on the background myself to shift the weight a bit further towards ROKs, although I'm bit hazy on whether the Yongdok and Andong battles happened before or after Battle of Taejon. Let me know if it is okay with you. Jim101 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks fine. —Ed!(talk) 10:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Support. Jim101 (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Generally very good, I couldn't find very much to pick fault with.
    • no dab links; there are no ext links so they all work!, and alt text is present (no action required);
    • images appear appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • if you can find them, location details for the References should be added (I understand that this is not always possible, and as such it is just a suggestion);
    • there is some inconsistency in your date format, sometimes you have "Month Day" (e.g July 20) and then at other times you have "Day Month" (e.g. 21 July), these should be consistent (I personally prefer Day Month, myself, but it doesn't really matter which format you use so long as it is the same throughout the article);
    • in the North Korean advance, this clause might need to be tweaked: "...forcing the NK 12th Division's to delay...". I don't think that the apostrophe and the S are required here as it is not possessing anything, is it? Unless there is a word missing, like "...12th Division's regiments...";
    • in the Eastern Corridor section, "major north-south road" should have an endash instead of a hyphen because it is implying connectivity per WP:DASH (i.e. it should be "major north–south road");
    • should "Eastern Corridor" be capitalised as it is? Unless it is a proper noun, it should be "Eastern corridor" in the title;
    • same as above for the "UN Counteroffensive" heading - is this a proper noun? If not, it should be "UN counteroffensive". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. I think I have fixed everything I can. —Ed!(talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I reviewed this article at GA and have re-read it since. IMO this article now meets the A class criteria fol recent edits and suggestions by Ed, Jim and Rupert;
  • Ed, I have made a few tweaks, including a bit of a rewrite on the lead - please take a look to ensure you are happy with these and revert/change if required; and
  • Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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/Battle_of_P%27ohang-dong&oldid=1136064813"