Talk:Battle of Quang Tri (1968)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Numerous link issues - duplicate links, linking of terms not on first use, etc.

   Add the acronym for PAVN the first time the full name is used.

   Why is "Allied Forces" capitalized? I don't think I've ever seen the phrase used as a proper noun to refer to US/ARVN units.

   "They were pursued by the American forces in a circular formation[20] forced contact with the fleeing Communists over the next ten days." - something is missing here.

   I haven't checked, but I assume that some text in the article comes directly from PD US government sources (given the template at the top of the references section) - while this is not a copyright violation, it is plagiarism, and any directly copied text needs to be rewritten.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I wonder where the number of ~2,000 men for the PAVN forces comes from? The text suggests a significantly higher number, since the 4 regular BNs from the 823th RGT plus the 814th MF BN alone would be around 2,200, and that does not include the various other elements involved.

   "enemy" to refer solely to the Communist side is POV

   What makes historyplace.com or historynet.com WP:RSes?  Done

   Couple of lines need citations - see the tags

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Troop strength numbers should be added to the ARVN and US sections (especially since the numbers are not sourced in the infobox)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I am somewhat concerned with how much the article relies on official US Army and ARVN sources - I would recommend either replacing them independent sources or including material from the official Vietnamese history (which has been rather handily translated into English) for balance (or preferably, both).

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Failing per comment by nominator here, too busy to address the review at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)