Talk:Battle of Ban Me Thuot/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: CreationofGod (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]- 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.
- 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??
- 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).
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Your article is well-referenced.
- a (references):
- 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.
- a (major aspects):
- 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.
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- This part is fine
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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.
- a (tagged and captioned):
- 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)
- a Pass/Fail: