The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:35, 8 March 2010 [1].

Battle of Osan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 22:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Osan/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a Military History A-class review, GA, and I believe it meets all the qualifications. —Ed!^(talk) 22:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text looks good, except for two flags which should have |link=|alt= per WP:ALT#Purely decorative images; please fix that by either editing the {{flagicon}} template or using the images directly. Ucucha 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the alt text for {{flagicon}} has been discussed at Template_talk:Flagicon#New_parameter_for_accessibility. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, struck my comment. Ucucha 05:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments.
• Overall I think this is an excellent article that is both well written and interesting. A few minor points that I think would add to the article though:
  • Ranks should be removed from the infobox per Template:Infobox military conflict
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map should be included if available to add to the readers understanding
    • I can't find one I can upload on Wikipedia. Sources at the US Army Center for Military History have maps of the event but not online. I can find images of these maps at non-free sites, should I upload one of them and then source them to the US Government books? I really don't know what else to do. —Ed!^(talk) 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm no expert on images, but I'm inclined to be bold. If the map itself is PD, then surely the source of the image of that map is irrelevant? Personnally I would use it but I have nothing to back that up! Anotherclown (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image in the infobox should be replaced if possible with one more representative of the event itself
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of the battle should probably be included in the lead
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dean's rank should be included in the text at first mention
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dean is wikilinked quite a few times, his name should only be wikilinked once at the first mention
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence in the aftermath section seems a little unclear and should possibly be reworked: "In the years following the Korean War, the United States Army recognized Task Force Smith when conducting training exercises on the ground that the task force used for training and occupation duties during their time in Japan."
    • It was difficult for me to rework it in a way that made sense. How does it look now? —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes that should work. Anotherclown (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway thats it for me for now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: I enjoyed the article. I felt that I could picture pretty clearly what happened.
  • I agree with Anotherclown; a map would really enhance the article. Ideally two maps, one showing the location of the battle site and another one of the battle site and placement of forces/direction of travel. I realise that's a lot to ask, though, and wouldn't oppose if a detailed map were not possible.
    • As stated above, I'm not sure how to proceed here. Do you have any suggestions? —Ed!^(talk) 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See if this map is in PD. It's from the book South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu of the Center of Military History, United States Army. A thing to note is that Colonel Appleman wrote the book as an employee of the US Army, and the book is published by the US Army...so the map should be in PD I believe. If all else fails, there is the fair use clause. Jim101 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • See, the problem with that image is that it isn't from a US Army website directly. It has to be sourced to a place where I can claim it as a work of the US government, and it's not clear when it's at that source...as far as I know anyway. Someone please correct me if I am wrong because I would use that map if I could. —Ed!^(talk) 02:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about the Korean War Project that worked with the CMH for map scans? Jim101 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm being bold and added a map I found on the Fort Sill's website. Jim101 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section Task Force Smith; includes the assertion that "only one in six had combat experience" which is unreferenced.
    • Ref 12 from the next sentence asserts this. I have added the reference at the end of this sentence, as well. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. As it turns out it's me that is at fault; I'm rather new to reviewing but have been talking to a friend who has more experience. I tend to feel that if I see a full stop and no ref that I ought to complain but my friend tells me it is common for an apparently unreferenced sentence or two to indeed be covered by a reference at the end of a following sentence. The question it raises in my mind is how is anyone to tell that this is the case? An unreferenced or one that is referenced later on will appear indistinguishable... perhaps someone can advise me? Nevertheless, thank you for clarifying. --bodnotbod (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The info box has no commanders listed for North Korea. If they are unknown then perhaps the box should state that, although I confess I'm not familiar with the guidelines that pertain to these battle infoboxen.
    • Found a name and put it in. —Ed!^(talk) 23:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section Battle; includes the term burp gun, clicking on the link takes you through a redirect to the gun's official name... would it be better to use the official name rather than the slang name?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article provides us with a prominent link to the Initial phase of the war, so this isn't really a complaint, but I do feel the article could be enhanced by a little more context about what happened just before the tanks move into/towards Osan. Is info available on the Korean orders to strike at that time? We are told that the US orders were to delay the tanks until reinforcements arrived, but what were the objectives of the N.Korean tanks? Where were they going? What was their target before they ran into the US? --bodnotbod (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the first Para in the "Tank Columns" section says, the forces were driving south in pursuit of retreating South Korean forces. Should this be further clarified somehow? —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Sorry, it was an oversight on my part; I would have read that part but must have forgotten by the time I came to review. --bodnotbod (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• The Blair ref in the footnotes needs a page number (current ref 27)
• Likewise the Hackworth ref (current ref 33)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both of these references. —Ed!^(talk) 15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about these refs. Also you have used inconsistent citation style with these. You should use the short style in your notes and move the full citation into the references section. Anotherclown (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Ed!^(talk) 15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Image check: 5 images, all from Commons, marked as Public Domain (government) with one as CC-by-SA with the author listed. Captions are good, though you shouldn't put periods at the end of captions that aren't complete sentences. --PresN 05:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed periods. —Ed!^(talk) 15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Comments a very interesting article, which I've seen pop up on the project a few times now. I have the following minor comments:
  • the Alt text for the images possibly needs to be expanded a little, particularly for the map;
    • Expanded the alt text. —Ed!^(talk) 17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is inconsistency in style with "U.S." (for instance in a couple of places in lead) but "US" used elsewhere (e.g in Tank column section);
    • Another user has been changing those. I think I have made them all consistent. —Ed!^(talk) 17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • check the spelling of kilometres and metres with your measurements, I think that you have used the British/Australian "metres" when (I think) American spelling is "meters" (for example see both the Tank and Infantry column sections). This might be an issue with the convert template, which I think can be fixed by adding the parameter "|sp=us" to it.
    • I have fixed the template. —Ed!^(talk) 17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I think the article looks in very good shape and I'll be happy to add my support once these above points are addressed/discussed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been addressed so I am supporting this article. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very well put together. Kudos! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The prose is sort of OK, but not the best I've seen for a MilHist nomination. I shouldn't be able to pot-shot little glitches like this so easily:

• "and the Task Force only had a few rounds of howitzer ammunition that proved effective"—is this ambiguous? , "which" or "that"? You mean most of their rounds proved to be ineffective? If so, OK, but could still be expressed more clearly.
  • That is what I meant. I reworded it to sound even clearer. —Ed!^(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Aren't soldiers always in the army? Can "Army" be dropped when immediately before "soldiers"?
• "and it was unprepared for war"—avoid the question of what "it" refers to by dropping it altogether. Retain the original subject.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "the strength of U.S. forces in the Far East had been steadily decreased since the end of World War II"—probably better without "been" (had steadily declined).
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "under-strength"—just two separate words, esp. in US English.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "regiments. From the regiment,"—repetition.
  • Replaced with a synonym. —Ed!^(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The forces were poorly equipped; 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry only had two companies of"—a colon would be better. And "had only two".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The soldiers were each equipped with 120 rounds of ammunition and two days of C-rations." What's the message (sorry, I'm distant from the subject): 120 and two is very little, given the task? If so, add "only".
  • Fixed.—Ed!^(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposing, but it does need a sift through by someone unfamiliar, whether before or immediately after promotion (if that is the decision by the delegate). I've looked only at the top bit. Tony (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to that but I have had great difficulty finding someone willing to copy-edit. Do you know of someone who could help? —Ed!^(talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.