Talk:Fall of Phnom Penh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 07:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hi, just a friendly ping as this one doesn't appear to have moved for a couple of weeks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi From Hill To Shore. Apologies for that. On it now. Mztourist, apologies for the delay. I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check. Flag any issues up here.

The photograph's source seems to be a dead link. Any chance that you could fix it?
- Can't find it online, the Marines, like all the US military, have been progressively restricting free access to Vietnam war photos. Its featured on page 118 of the official Marines history https://books.google.ae/books?id=9Gbp6LJW63oC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=Department+of+Defense+Photo+(USMC)+A150857&source=bl&ots=5CpiW2oUKW&sig=ACfU3U18KYqUSfUMWZPfceMqAeyOhjZbww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigi_y_yPDmAhXC8-AKHSxmCioQ6AEwEnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Department%20of%20Defense%20Photo%20(USMC)%20A150857&f=false Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I have changed the source to that in commons.

"Lt. General Sak Sutsakhan" Could you give Lieutenant in full, and link lieutenant general.
- Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"of the city for 3 days"; "Thai border arriving 4 days later": Numbers up to nine should be spelt out.
- Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an almost complete absence of Khmer Rouge PoV. Did they not at least make official statements or issue proclamations?
- None that I can locate, the Khmer Rouge were not known for their diligent record-keeping in this period. Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say. I wondered if there was some triumphalist propaganda. Ah well, if there isn't, there isn't.

"Lacking the numbers necessary to openly control Cambodia, emptying Phnom Penh of those of its population who were indifferent or openly hostile to them was essential for securing Khmer Rouge control." That's a bit PoV. Possibly insert 'they felt that' or similar - assuming that the source supports this?
- That's what Becker says Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attribution.

The lead seems brief. Perhaps you could expand the last sentence a little and add a new paragraph based on the last paragraphs of "17 April" and on "Aftermath"?
- Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something?

That's fine. For some reason it wasn't showing before.

"Aftermath": "18 April" twice in two sentences doesn't flow well. Could one of them be tweaked?
- Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Also evicted were Princess Mam Manivan Phanivong, one of Sihanouk's wives, Khy-Taing Lim, the Minister of Finance, and Loeung Nal, the Minister of Health." Some semi colons to separate out the individuals would help this to flow.
- Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Aftermath": There are three single sentence paragraphs. Would it be possible to run at least some of them together?
- Done Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cites 3 and 9 need either ISBNs or OCLCs.
- Done Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 2: I think there should be a colon in the title.
- Done Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 7: the title should be in title case.
- I don't understand Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox states "Start of the Cambodian Genocide", but this isn't covered in the main article.
- While its not explicitly stated, the execution of captured FANK forces and captured Government officials as well as emptying the city, including those who wouldn't survive the trek to the countryside, was the start of the genocide. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above re the lead and the infobox, and the three points on cites. I think that's all. A cracking article. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did expand the lead, not sure what else there is to say there. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. See my comment above. It's fine.

Genocide. It is normal in an aftermath section to explicitly mention any long term consequences of what is described in the article. This aftermath effectively ends on 30 April. But the fall of Phnom Penh has a number of further consequences, which I think could do with mentioning, even if briefly. The start of the genocide is one, which I think would merit at least a short sentence. (Otherwise the article looks good to go to me.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, done. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. A nice, focused, well referenced, readable article. Well done. More than happy to promote it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild much appreciated, all relatively painless! Best regards Mztourist (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed