Talk:Battle of Ong Thanh

No title

In 'They Marched Into Sunlight', the book mentions many problems with the NVA KIA numbers. "The most reliable number, Sloan and the others said, might have been the 22 seen by the reconnaissance platoon, which was the first unit to reach the battlefield after the fight." (page 415) Wsacul 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Viet Cong?

This is a derogative term used by one side of the conflict. The term is used to refer to NVA and NLF units. This needs to be fixed. --Cerejota (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Right, this battle was against the regular troops of the North Vietnamese Army not Viet Cong who were irregulars. Doesn't the fellow who wrote this article know this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missaeagle (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have undertaken a light copy edit of this article. I have the following comments and suggestions for further improvement:

• currently the article is written using British/Australian English, however, given that the topic relates to the US, it would probably be best per WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES to rework it to be compliant with US English (for instance, kilometres → kilometers, metres → meters, recognised → recognized, etc);
  • the convert templates can be made to use US spelling by adding the following code: "|sp=us" to the template, for instance "{{convert|30|km|sp=us}}". I have done this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• in the Prelude section, this sentence probably needs a citation: "Early in October, Viet Cong soldiers of the 271st Regiment had arrived in Long Nguyen but they could not obtain their much-needed food supplies, as a result of allied search-and-destroy operations which had created significant food shortages for Viet Cong units in the region."
• in the Battle section, there is a missing word: "with the intention of entering the enemy base camp from a slightly direction". A slightly what direction?
  • there is still a missing word here. For instance, "slightly direction to the west" is missing a word between "slightly" and "direction". In this case slightly is an adjective describing the noun (direction), but it requires a second adjective to describe the noun in this case. For instance, this would be correct "slightly different direction to the west". Is this what is intended here?; AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's right, I just didn't pay attention to my own words. I will have another look.Canpark (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• per WP:LAYOUT, the Notes section usually goes above the References section;
• Note # 2 could be formatted to include publisher, author and accessdate information.

Good work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, I've struck the comments dealt with and responded to one that needs just a little bit more. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • All done, good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Reasonably well written, I made a few minor copy-edits

   Complies sufficiently with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References check out, RS, no OR. However the ELs are used as references so should be removed as per WP:EL Done

• I have replaced the online sources with book references as per Wiki reference rules, which I wasn't aware of.Canpark (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and focussed.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Licensed and captioned

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just one minor point, the ELs. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

   OK, I am happy to list this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you again, mate.Canpark (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

CHECO Report?

It's a shame no one referenced the Project CHECO report on this action (listed by the project as "Ambush at XT 686576"). It has some good, period information about the ambush (and it's clearly identified as such throughout the report). Although it focuses much of its attention on fire support for the battle (air and artillery), it provides some good insight. Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath sources/verification

The entire first section of the "Aftermath" section does not coincide with any of the interviews with Vo Minh Triet I have so far seen recorded on TV or accounts I have read in proven good sources like Maraniss' "they marched into sunlight". Given the source that is used for citation (a short article in a non-peer-reviewed magazine) I highly doubt the accuracy of the claim that Lt.Col Vo Minh Triet thought all enemies dead. All sources I know of claim that he had to keep a strategic schedule set by his superiors and didn't have a particular interest in slugging it out with the 2/28th since his troops were out of food. As far as I know he assumed the battle tactically won when the Americans started disengaging. Therefore I suggest either deleting those sentences entirely or finding a better source that can actually stand on its own. Fellbatzen (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I believe you are correct about the misleading aftermath section. There are other problems with the article. US participants in the battle are given as 142 to 155, and casualties listed add up to 141. No way. Casualties are probably correct, but what are not included among the American participants in the battle are the forces send out to rescue companies A and D. Those rescue forces were also participants in the battle and also suffered casualties. That should be clarified or explained, otherwise the infobox gives the impression that the US suffered nearly 100 percent casualties. Smallchief (talk 10:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)