Talk:Air Battle of South Korea

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Air Battle of South Korea article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

Article policies

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Military history: Aviation / Asian / South Pacific / British / European / North America / Southeast Asia / 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.
Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Asian military history task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force United States military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Korea Mid‑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.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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: Military history Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Cold War Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canpark (talk • contribs • count) 11:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well written, but I have three minor issues after I went through it. Firstly, be consistent with the format of dates (eg. "29 June" or "July 27"). Secondly, I suggest the usage of KPAF to describe the North Korea air force (eg. KPAF 1st Air Division) instead of "NK", because I noticed both were used at different parts of the article. Thirdly, I don't quite get this sentence: "Meanwhile, the 3rd Bombardment Group bombed targets around Seoul, seeking to slow the North Korean advance from the captured city." Are the North Koreans retreating? Fixed all three issues. —Ed!(talk) 21:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The first air-to-air and air-to-ground operations conducted by both sides were well covered, and the effectiveness of air operations in the early battles of the war were put into context without going into unnecessary detail. Well done.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Generally the article do not indicate a sense of bias, but I would suggest replacing words such as "enemy" with "opponent". I think I have removed all instances of this. —Ed!(talk) 21:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Thanks for fixing the issues I've brought up. Consequently I will pass this article for GA because I can't spot any further problems, and I'm hoping to see similar air war articles in the future.Canpark (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns. Thanks for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 21:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)