First Battle of Maryang-san has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result February 13, 2010 WikiProject A-class review Approved May 7, 2011 Good article nominee Listed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 6, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Battle of Maryang San is regarded as one of the Australian Army's greatest victories of the Korean War? Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 3, 2010, October 3, 2011, October 3, 2018, October 3, 2021, and October 3, 2022. Current status: Good article

This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / South Pacific / Chinese / Korean / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force Chinese military history task force Korean military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Australia: Military history Mid‑importance First Battle of Maryang-san is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Korea Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Korean military history task force. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

A question: 3RAR was left with 320 soldiers at the middle of the battle on October 5, and this didn't include other battalions' strengths. What is the exact stength of 3RAR (or the entire attack force) before the battle?

The reason why I ask this is because the Chinese indicated that at least more than 2 battalions attacked 191st, and the 6000 number was the Chinese strength before the battle, not on October 5 like the 3RAR number. Jim101 (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. 320 was 3RARs strength at the start of their assault on Maryang San. Not sure about the strength before the earlier fighting for Kowang-San or indeed the totatl strength for 28th Bde. The reason I settled on using this figure in the info box (and the smaller chinese figure of 1,200) was that those were the strenghts identified in my sources for 5 October at Maryang San, which is the focus of the article. Likewise with the Chinese casualty figures in the infobox only relate to those suffered at Maryang San (as far as I'm aware). I'm open to suggestions though... Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two ways. Either list all the units involved, or revert back to the 320 vs 1200 numbers on October 5. Since you are doing a review, the second solution is the best for now. Jim101 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnotherClown. Jiang Tingyu, the director and the chief researcher of the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution, published some new information for the commemoration of Korean War 60th anniversary. Two bits of information I believe need to added for this battle are:

• Besides the 191st Division, there were also two armor, 15 field artillery and three anti-aircraft artillery companies present in support of the Chinese defenders.
• The official casualty number for the 191st Division from October 2 to November 7 (a.k.a. total casualties from both First and Second Battle of Maryang San) were 1,600.

I'm having problem interpreting this article's structure and narrative flow due to my English deficiencies, so I'll left you to add the information to where it is appropriate. In case you need a citation:

• (in Chinese) Jiang, Tingyu (姜廷玉) (2010-12-24), Excerpts from the Book "Interpret the War to Resist American and Aid Korea": Interpret Major Battles and Campaigns (《解读抗美援朝战争》：重要战役战斗解读), Beijing: Xinhua, retrieved 2011-02-26

Cheers. Jim101 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US is listed at the top of the infobox fields while the article states that the primary combatants where "Australian and British" troops. This seems incredibly bias. Surely Britain and Australia should be at the top for this particular battle? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]