Talk:Battle of Long Tan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk · contribs) 18:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm going to be reviewing the article. I can see that Hawkeye7 has nominated. Thanks :) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

I think that the introduction could be slimmed down slightly. I've replaced the below with slightly shorter versions. Feel free to revert if you don't think they suit:

Several subsequent controversies about the battle arose, including fabrication of official events and embellishment of the roles of some senior officers, disputes over casualties, size of the attacking forces, and official histories of the battle which cite purported documents and anecdotal claims which remain uncorroborated. Australian official records of 245 PAVN/VC casualties led to some dissension from soldiers due to accusations that body counts were being inflated for public-relations purposes.

With: The reporting of the battle contained significant discrepancies, with accusations that body counts were being inflated for public-relations purposes.

And: The PAVN 275th Regiment and VC D445 Battalion held different interpretations of the battle's outcome. The D445 Battalion regarded the battle as a victory, with the initial mortaring intended to draw out 6 RAR units into an ambush. Following the initial ambush and due to the D445 Battalion holding the ground until the next day, this was regarded as political victory as they had secured the areas around Long Tan village itself. The 275th Regiment regard the battle as an operational failure as they were unable to wipe out the entire company, but consider that they gained a political victory by forcing a retreat until the next morning and earning greater support from the people of Phuoc Tuy. Additionally, whether the battle impaired the 275th Regiment is disputed, as they had launched attacks against the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) 18th Division a week later. The impact of the battle on the combat capability of the D445 Battalion is also in dispute, as they were redeployed against the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment Task Force a month following the battle.

With: The battle's outcome was indecisive, with disagreement on the affect between the PAVN 275th Regiment and VC D445 Battalion. The D445 Battalion regarded the battle as a success, with the political victory of an effective ambush, and the securing of the areas around Long Tan village itself. However, while the 275th Regiment were unable to wipe out the entire company, they gained greater support of the locals around Phuoc Tuy by forcing a retreat. Whether the battle impaired the capabilities of both Battalions is under dispute.

I've cut it back still further, eliminating the controversy paragraph. Also, an error had crept in" the 275th Regiment was a VC regiment, not a PAVN one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I've had a bit more of a read about Ernest Chamberlain, who is cited a few times. From military records, he seems to be a first hand account, and I have no objection to the use of his material as a source.

Main Body

From having read the main body text, it is quite dense. I suggest that this would be eased through the splitting of each of the sub-sections into further sections, allowing them to be more navigable.
Maybe increase the size of the photos to make the passage easier to read?

Y I have removed the hard-coded image sizes per MOS:UPRIGHT Readers can adjust their own image sizes. Hard-coded images cause problems for mobile devices. Made the maps larger with upright=1.3 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main assessment section is quite dense, and another page already exists for it. It might be best to summarise the information in a shorter paragraph and ensure that the info removed is on the separate assessment page.

Overall

I've found this to be a thorough, well written and in depth article. If the above can be addressed, this should be GA or pretty close.

Continued

Hi Hawkeye7. I've trimmed a bit more, and added some sub-sections. One observation is that there aren't many interwiki links from the Battle section onwards. Given that much has been converted to abbreviation, it would be great if Wikilinks were attached to the main sections. With this, I'd be happy to begin (and pass) the formal GA review. Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a pass through the article and removed all the duplicate links per MOS:OVERLINK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi Hawkeye7. Review is attached. Enjoy the GA.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: