Talk:Battle of Ban Me Thuot/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CreationofGod (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Overall the article was good, but I would put forward the following suggestions:
    • Firstly, you could use {{cite book}} to format your referencese, and it should be organised alphabetically with the author's surname appearing first (eg. Thach, Pham N).
      • Secondly, your background is a bit short IMO and seems to focus slightly more on the North Vietnamese. You could provide some information on the South Vietnamese side; what was their situation politically and militarily before the battle??
        • Thirdly, after a person's full name had been mentioned once, you only need to use their surname thereafter when referring to them again, without mentioning their rank.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • Your article is well-referenced.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • The coverage is good, with a good view from both sides of the battle.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • Consider that most of the sources were taken from the Vietnamese communists, the article seem to cover the South Vietnamese side very well, in line with the rule of neutrality.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • This part is fine

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

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

  • The images were used appropriately to highlight the event in question, with correct licensing.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Generally this article was very well-written, it covered the event very well. I will let it pass as GA Class.CreationofGod (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing the article, highly appreciate it.Canpark (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)