# Talk:Battle of Haman

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Haman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: D2306 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is my first review, so if you feel I am not doing a good job feel free to ask for another person to do it.

That's not a problem. I apologize if my responses seem overly harsh, I hope I can help you get an understanding of what my own experiences reviewing articles have been. —Ed!(talk) 23:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think it passes all criteria. GA.D2306 (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


### Lead and Infobox
"The Battle of Haman was an engagement between United Nations (UN)..."  - yet belligerents in the info box are United States
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There are no citations in either the lead or the infobox. In particular, I am concerned the North Korean casualty figures are the same as for the larger Battle of Battle Mountain. If that unit sustained these casualties over the entire Pusan campaign, rather that just one battle, it should be clearly stated as to not be misleading. Ideally, I would like to see the casualty figures cited.
Per WP:CITE the info in those boxes is cited in the rest of the article, and so citing it again in the lead and box would be redundant. —Ed!(talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Coming back to the NK casualties, perhaps add a nb point that the NK casualties are for the entire battle of Masan. Otherwise it nearly seems that one NK division lost 8000 men in each of these battles.
Done. —Ed!(talk) 04:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Any data for the ROK casualties?
No. Per the text, the ROK troops involved in the battle essentially fled immediately, and so none of them was probably killed. —Ed!(talk) 21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


### Background
You seem to be using "24th Infantry" to refer to both the division and the regiment, which is confusing. The link to 24th Infantry division should be in that section, and not further down.
In military context, "24th Infantry" refers exclusively to the regiment. All references to the "24th division" are referred to as such, but it is generally understood that the "24th Infantry" (the main unit in this article) is the regiment. I moved the 24th Division link up to its first reference, though. —Ed!(talk) 22:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
"For the first month after the defeat of Task Force Smith, 24th Infantry was repeatedly defeated and forced south by superior North Korean numbers and equipment." - you only need one citation.
Cross referencing two sources to a point is a pretty common thing, particularly in this instance where I am citing multiple instances of the US losing battles and being forced back. If you're concerned about WP:CITEKILL it's generally only a problem with 3+ refs to one point. —Ed!(talk) 22:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, too much copypasted text from other articles. Why go into so much detail about the 24th Infantry division or the 7th NK Division if neither participated in this battle. 
This article is very closely intertwined with the Battle of Masan, the Battle of Nam River and the Battle of Battle Mountain. As such, it's very difficult to separate the fights around Masan into separate articles. Generally, a Good Article needs to be self-sustaining - someone needs to be able to read it and understand all of the context without clicking elsewhere. In the context of this article, it's essential for the reader to know there are two other battles going on immediately to the left and right of this one, and the UN and NK units are switching between them. Battle Mountain, Haman and Nam River are all three smaller sub-fights of Masan, which is in turn a sub-fight of Battle of Pusan Perimeter and the context of the simultaneous fighting is essential, as you'll see in other Good Articles. —Ed!(talk) 23:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you create a template for battle of Masan with the 3 sub-fights listed there, like there is for battle of Pusan?D2306 (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Masan has its own detailed article, your summary is far to detailed. GAC 3b says that the article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detailD2306 (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Once again here, "unnecessary detail" is generally used to prevent extremes in writing, such as if I had written about what every soldier in the battle was doing. In this context, we're talking about a battle between elements of three divisions, so speaking of what was going on on the platoon and company level is considered "well researched and thorough" coverage per WP:FACR —Ed!(talk) 23:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


### Battle
A map or maps would help, even a very simple one, just to visualise, what is going on.D2306 (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. —Ed!(talk) 04:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


### Aftermath
"Desertion had continued to be a problem for the 24th Infantry, a de facto segregated unit. Statistics compiled found the 25th Infantry Division had to detain 116 deserters from the 25th Infantry throughout August, compared to 15 from the 27th Infantry and 12 from the 35th Infantry" - Please do specify: 25th Infantry regiment? division?. I found the sentence very confusing.
That was an error, I meant to say "24th Infantry." Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
"The North Korean troops suffered heavily in the fight, and most became casualties in the attack..." This and the next paragraph are exactly copypasted in the other two articles Battle of Battle Mountain, and Battle of Masan. D2306 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Per this information, that's as much as I can give on total casualties. Not much info is known on North Korean casualties during the fight for Masan - of the 20,000 NK troops that fought, 6,000 returned to North Korea and 3,000 were captured. Exactly how many died is unknown since there were a lot of conscripts from South Korea who deserted during the battles. In most battles all that's needed is the casualty figures, but since they're impossible to determine in the three Masan sub-battles this info is essential on all four pages. —Ed!(talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


### References
Hastings is only used for one citation, and is quite older than the  rest of the books. Perhaps you could replace tat one citation and put hasting in "Further Reading"?
Done. I think that's everything. —Ed!(talk) 04:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)