The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 -MBK₀₀₄ 10:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is an important topic and meets most if not all of the A class criteria. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I have been involved with working on this article, although my contributions have been limited to fixing typos, dab links, etc. I believe that this article meets the A class criteria. My comments are as follows:
  • No action required:
    • There are no dab links, alt text is present and external links all check out.
    • The article is well referenced and cited, flows logically and is well illustrated with appropriate images;
    • The images are all appropriately licenced, although I think that they might need to be moved to Commons (not sure if this is a requirement, but most or all of them have been tagged for moving);
    • I found no major WP:MOS issues.
  • Action required/suggestions:
    • The abbreviation 3RAR is used in the Background section without having been introduced correctly, i.e. in the lead you could say 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR);  Done
    • The same as above for other unit abbrievations such as KOSB, KSLI, RNF, etc.;  Done
    • In the Fall of Maryang San, 5 October 1951 section please check the format of "South African Airforce" - should it be "South African Air Force" instead?  Done
    • As per above, I'd suggest moving the images to Commons.
    • Also with the images, you could probably use the PD-Australia licence, (see some of the images on this article here), as although they are appropriately licenced, I think the PD-Australia licence makes things even clearer as to why they a public domain images;  Done
    • Some of the images seem to have their sizes forced (i.e. stipulated as per 200px, etc.), when I think it is usual at ACR for images to be unforced (i.e. use "thumb" without a forced image size), although I'm not sure about this, though;

Anyway, that is my review. Good work in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, will have a look at the images but am no expert on Commons. Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text, dab links, or external links. Well Done!
  • You need to use both metric units and standard units for the guns for the benefit of those who think only in one of the two schools of measurement.  Done
  • The company names - A, B, C, D, etc - were they referred to phonically or just be the letter? For example, in the United States, these would be either Able, Baker, Charlie, and David companies or Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, and Delta companies. Was this not the case for the Australians and British?  Not done
  • Make sure you use non breaking spaces between numbers and measurements.  Done TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, thanks for these. In the Australian Army company names are written as they are i.e 'A Company' but said phonetically, i.e. Alpha Company. Ack the rest. Anotherclown (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I give up... how do I do a non-breaking space in a conversion template? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the conversion templates you do not need to use non-breaking spaces, those are include automatically, but any number and unit combination outside of the template needs non breaking spaces. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it sorted now - just used the convert template for everything. Please let me know if I missed one. Thanks again Tom. Anotherclown (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All my issues have been addressed. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: In order to preserve the focus of this article as the "Australian Army's greatest accomplishments during the war", you may want to consider renaming the article to the "First Battle of Maryang San", because the Chinese do talk a lot about the Second Battle of Maryang San as the first time PLA applied modern armor tactics. I'm changing the Chinese title to differentiate between the battles. Jim101 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Yeah that makes sense and I've done that now. Out of curiousity... I assume the Second Battle of Maryang San (from a Chinese perspective) was the fighting a month after the first during which they recaptured the feature from the British? Anotherclown (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Chinese call it the Counterattack at Maliangsan. The Chinese sources basically said the PLA moved up a newly trained company of T-34, rolled over the British, and then started to parade the POWs. Jim101 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

• Your weapon sizes need a hyphen as they are adjectives. Don't worry about non-breaking spaces if you're using the convert template. And if you are, use |adj=on in your code to format them properly.  Done
• Watch for NPOV, Chinese blind courage, aggressive Australians, etc.  Done
• Are there any maps available? I got confused as to the relationships between the terrain features.  Done
• You might consider giving the abbreviation in parentheses when spelling out the name for the first time.  Done
• Link the Second battle in the last paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Sturmvogel. Will go over the POV issues and look for maps (I may need to consider a fair use image though - would that be acceptable?). Also there is currently no article for the Second Battle of Maryang San, am hoping to avoid a redlink if that isn't required for the ACR? Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair use image would be fine because otherwise we'll be without. Don't be afraid of redlinks, IMO. That's how articles get written.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Done these now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any further suggestions? Unless I'm mistaken I believe that I have responded to or resolved all comments to date, so please let me know if I have missed something. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - just two quick comments on this excellent article:

• "command of Lieutenant General James Cassels (later Field Marshal Sir James)" - the information in the brackets is basically redundant given that Cassels has his own wikilinked article. Also, I'll have to check up on this, but I'm pretty sure he was a major general at this time not a lieutenant general.  Done

Excellent pick up, I checked my sources again and you are right he was a Major General (which is standard for Div comd anyway, not sure why I did that....argh). Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's dismissal as Commander-in-Chief" - it should be clarified what MacArthur was C-in-C of (UN forces Korea).  Done

Anyway, well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:15, 12 February 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.