Battle of Pyongtaek 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 7, 2010 Good article nominee Listed April 10, 2010 WikiProject A-class review Approved
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 / Korean / North America / United States / 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 articles Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Korean military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Korea GA‑class 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 articles GA This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated working groups: /  This article is supported by the Korean military history task force. This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Cold War GA‑class ( inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles GA This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Pyongtaek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackyd101 ( talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b ( MoS):

• "is seen as a poor showing for American forces," - by whom? I'd also think about rephrasing the "poor showing" part as it does not sound particularly encyclopedic.
•  Done "the regiment's 1st Battalion was outmaneuvered and forced to retreat at Pyongtaek. The battalion was forced to retreat without significantly delaying the North Koreans" - you repeat yourself here. I suggest eliminating the " The battalion was forced to retreat" and merging the rest of that sentance with the one before it.
•  Done "completely by surprise, resulting in a complete rout" - repetition of "complete"
•  Done "Most of South Korea's forces retreated in the face of the invasion . . . forces to retreat south" - repetition of "retreat"
•  Done "collapsing country. US President Harry S. Truman subsequently ordered ground troops into the country" - repetition of "country"
• "had been steadily decreasing since the end" - in numbers?
•  Done "Regardless, the 24th Infantry Division" - instead of regardless, try "in spite of these deficiencies"
•  Done "From the division" - since this is a new section, you should name the division again.
•  Done "was unprepared for a fight, it was poorly trained" - insteasd of the comma, use a colon or an "as"

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• I believe all of your concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your review. — Ed! ^(talk) 02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• The first issue in the list has not yet been addressed - did you have an objection to it?-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• I think I have fixed it. How does it look now? — Ed! ^(talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

This article is now ready to pass, congratulations. I apologise that the process took so long - honestly, I probably shouldn't have started the review as I am in the middle of a major project in RL and haven't been able to spend much time on WP. In any case, well done.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I just remembered one more thing, can you link and give the full title for General Dean when he first appears? Otherwise it is a nice article. Regards-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 01:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Pyongtaek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824070436/http://www.usarj.army.mil/history/tfsmith.aspx to http://www.usarj.army.mil/history/tfsmith.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply