Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Reviews to follow shortly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See below

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Link Khmer Rouge in the body
• When did Cambodia become Kampuchea?
  • I can't find a RS that gives a definite date for this, it was sometime between 17 April 1975 and 5 January 1976, so I realise this creates some consistency problems.
• The PAVN also moved to take control of a number of islands formerly controlled by South Vietnam and other territory and islands contested between Vietnam and Cambodia The article just said that there was an agreement between NVN and Cambodia in 1967, so what was contested?
  • The Khmer Rouge weren't party to the agreement and presumably didn't feel bound by it. They were determined to get the Vietnamese out of their territory as soon as possible and to confront the Vietnamese who they came to regard as their main enemy. Despite the Khmer Rouge's obvious inferiority to the Vietnamese they continued to provoke them leading eventually to the Vietnamese invasion.
• "refuelable" or "refuellable"?
• I personally don't like the rank abbreviations, which are not widely understood, and differ from service to service. Here, we are not even following the service standard, nor using them consistently: the USMC uses "LCpl" not "Lcpl" or "LCPL", the USMC use "1atLt" not "1LT" or "1dt Lt", "2ndLt" not "2LT", and the USAF uses "1st Lt" and "2d Lt" not "1LT" and "2LT", "TSgt", not "TSGT". I note that in some cases they have been spelt out in fill, and would strongly urge that ranks be consistently spelt out in full.
• Comma after "Finally" in "Finally at 20:00 Knife 51 landed"
• "after being refused " Capitalise the "a"
• De-capitalize "Master".
• introduced an amendment to the War Powers Resolution that added the rescue of nationals to the list of situations not requiring prior approval by Congress Was this amendment passed?
• We don't italicize code names.
• I'd never heard of the USS Harold E. Holt before. I wasn't aware that the USN names ships after foreign leaders (and one who drowned at that.) (No action required)
  • Apparently it was the first US Navy ship named after a foreign leader. Strangely there's no entry for it on DANFS
• Last line is unreferenced

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7, I've made all the requested changes except where noted above and look forward to your further comments. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes. Revert anything you don't agree with. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

All good, thanks! Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)