The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

Very short article. Written with FAC in mind. Already a GA, and looking for an ACR before. Shouldn't be a terrible commitment. —Ed!^(talk) 02:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Have proofread the article and see no problems with the prose. Will check citations and sourcing next, but saw no problems with uncited material in reading. GRAPPLE X 22:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Citations and sourcing are sound too. Images are grand, both being from Commons and used in an appropriate manner. GRAPPLE X 22:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - having passed this article at GA with suggestions for improvement here, I'm surprised to see that many of these suggestions - including a relatively straightforward grammatical fix - have not been addressed. Is there some reason for this? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I did not know about that page! I probably got mixed up with the strange way things worked out with the first reviewer. I'll make those fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to everything on that page. Sorry for missing it. —Ed!^(talk) 14:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Please don't mix ((cite ...)) and ((citation)) templates as they have different punctuation.
  • Fixed. All of them should be ((citation)) now. —Ed!^(talk) 14:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations for book sources.
  • Added them all. —Ed!^(talk) 14:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Regards ref 15: there are 'volume' and 'issue' params in ((citation)). Eisfbnore • talk 13:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentsSupport
  • No dabs [1] (no action required).
  • External links check out [2] (no action required).
  • Some images all lack alt text [3] (suggestion only)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 12:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Citation Error check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
  • Images are all PD and seem appropriate for the article (no action required).
  • This is problematic: "During a patrol, Shadrick was killed by the machine gun of a North Korean T-34 tank, and when his body was taken to an outpost where reporter Marguerite Higgins was covering the war." Seems like a hanging sentence to me, in particular "and when", and when what?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 12:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammer here: "donated US$5 for Shadrick could buy one for himself..." perhaps reword to "donated US$5 so Shadrick could buy one for himself."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 12:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect presentation of timings. For instance: "from long range at around 1600..." should be "16:00" per WP:MOSTIME.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 12:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here: "who had been killed at around 0830", which should be "08:30". Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 12:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All issues have been dealt with so I've added my support now. I have also reworded the lead a little so please review to see if your happy with the changes and revert if you don't think they work. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportComments:
  • in the lead, I'm slightly confused by this: "dying between the Battle of Osan and the Battle of Pyongtaek" - is this chronologically between or physically? If chronologically, wouldn't the casualties that occured during the Battle of Osan have come before Shadrick?
    • Actually it was both chronologically and physically between the battle. As to the casualties at Osan, that's addressed later in the article. —Ed!^(talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, Ed, thanks for clarifying. My suggestion is to reword it slightly, but it is not a major issue. Something like this might work: "He was widely reported as the first American soldier killed in action in the war and, as a result, received national attention after his death. However, subsequent reports indicated that he may not have actually been the first American killed as his death is now believed to have occured between the Battle of Osan and the Battle of Pyongtaek." AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, this might be reworded: "killed hours before Shadrick at a different engagement" (specifically "at a different" to "in a different engagement");
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • this sounds a little repetitious: "so Shadrick's father donated US$5 so Shadrick..." (use of "so"). Perhaps, "...as a result Shadrick's father donated US$5 so Shadrick..."
    • Fixed —Ed!^(talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that paired commas should be added after "West Virginia", in the Death and Misidentification sections;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References section there is some inconsistency in presentation style: "retrieved 2011-08-07" as opposed to "retrieved August 7, 2011" and "Retrieved 2009-11-29" - if possible this should be consistent;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the image description page, "File:Osan Bazooka Team.jpg" is missing a date, it also does not identify either of the men. If you are able to, would you mind updating that page? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User talk:Dank#Copyediting at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC) {subst:archive bottom))[reply]