Talk:Phạm Ngọc Thảo

GA review comments

I've reviewed this article against the WP:GA criteria and have the following comments:

• Use of the en-dash per WP:DASH for year ranges (so 1946–54) and page ranges (309–310).
• "...helped to plot a coup and helped to destablise the country..." helped x2 reads slightly awkwardly.
• "...and sentenced to death ..." I think it should be "...and was sentenced to death ...", agree?
• I think the last sentence of the lead needs either expansion or moving to the front of the lead, it's his legacy so could be used right at the start of the introduction.
• In the Early Vietminh years, there are a few short sentences whose merging could improve the flow of the prose a bit, e.g. "He then quit the communists in an overt sense. He took a job as a schoolteacher in Saigon and later worked in a bank. " could become "He then quit the communists in an overt sense by first taking a job as a schoolteacher in Saigon and later working in a bank."... just a suggestion.
• Wikilink ARVN (for non-experts).
• Another chance to flow more, "He was promoted to the post of chief of Ben Tre Province. There he covertly worked with the cadres of Nguyen Thi Dinh, a Vietcong leader who later rose to be the highest ranking female communist." could become "He was promoted to the post of chief of Ben Tre Province where he covertly worked with the cadres of Nguyen Thi Dinh, a Vietcong leader who later rose to be the highest ranking female communist."
• From Strategic Hamlet onward, most of the single years are wikilinked, is there a reason for this? It's not consistent across the article, all or nothing I think.
• "...attack at 330..." confusing - 3.30am or 0330 hours or something would be clearer.
• "...to go and fetch them..." a bit familiar sounding.
• Flow "It comprised almost entirely of well known professional and academic leaders. It was hardly representative, having no representatives from the agricultural or labour sector." into something like "It comprised almost entirely of well known professional and academic leaders and as such was hardly representative, having no representatives from the agricultural or labour sector."
• "...shortly before 1200..." could this be "...shortly before midday..."? Also, "2000" is confusing as 330 was.
• I'd prefer to see full dates instead of just day/month... WP:MOS recommends this also to prevent context being lost in the future.

So, I'm putting this on hold because while there are several comments, none of them are major. The Rambling Man 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I did the necessary tweaks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

It's now a WP:GA. The Rambling Man 09:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Overlinks

There appear to be numerous overlinks in this article but I realise that it may be a vague area of the guideline. We do not usually link countries - France, Cambodia etc - and we seem also to be linking stuff both in the lead section and again in the body. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no prohibition at WP:OVERLINK against linking countries, or in WP:REPEATLINK against linking again after the lead. The only express bar in overlink is not to link to "major" - however defined, as ever - "geographic features and locations", and even for those there is an explicit exemption for when they can be said to be "relevant to the topic of the article". Many people for some reason interpret the guidelines differently, but it's quite clear that even country links such as United States or China are going to be OK - and of course helpful to the 100s of 1000s of readers who appear to be interested in visiting those pages each month - in many, many cases. N-HH talk/edits 10:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If people do not know what France is then the world's population is even dumber than I thought and we'd be better off turning Wikipedia into a colouring book (which is sort of what happens when things are overlinked anyway). Nothing is prohibited because MOS is a series of guidelines, not policies. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As past debates on this have noted, linking is not simply about "explaining what France is" to a reader of a prior article who might not otherwise know. First, they provide easy navigation to related sites in an online encyclopedia. In addition, the WP page on France is not simply a one-sentence definition of what France is - eg "a country in Europe next to Germany" - but a detailed encyclopedia entry, with all sorts of facts, figures and history that I would imagine most French people don't even know off the top of their heads, whether they are dumb or not. Putting yourself in the place of other readers for two seconds, and being open-minded about what they might want, rather than insisiting on your own aesthetic and other preferences might be a start. Plenty of other editors seem to be quite happy with a relatively generous attitude to linking but one which still falls within the guideline, if common practice is anything to go by. And, yes, the guideline is only a guideline - but if you're going to say we don't have to follow it slavishly, don't forget that such a position validates a claim that we should be more liberal with linking despite it, just as much as it does any claim that we need to be tighter than it allows. N-HH talk/edits 10:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Credit me with some intelligence, please. You have said nothing that I did not already know. My reference to overlinking countries being a guideline was a comment in relation to your "The only express bar in overlink ..." remark. It cannot be an "express bar" because it is a guideline, not a policy.

I raised a simple point based on the fact that it may be a vague area". I didn't change anything, I didn't insist on anything, I really do not care much either way and I certainly do not want to become involved in generalised MOS discussions, which I tend to find are inhabited by pedants and riders of hobbyhorses. Maybe that just reflects the few that I was able to read through without falling asleep, but there we go. I'd rather do proper content stuff any day, but it takes all sorts. Let's move on, shall we? - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Neither of us are talking about changing anything on this front (as noted there are other things to focus on anyway, like even the lead sentence). It's just that I did spot you citing some of the arguments that I do see in linking debates - eg about not linking countries and then "who doesn't know what France is?", which are often made by people who genuinely don't seem to get the points I made in response to you and who do go around changing thousands of links to their preferred style. My attitude tends to be <shrugs shoulders> about a lot of such issues and in favour of less prescription and proscription, especially when context is ignored, but for that very reason I do sometimes query people who seem to be a little more strict and rigid. N-HH talk/edits 20:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Does this article need an infobox? It's just that the majority of the articles on wikipedia I've seen have an infobox or picture at the top right of the article. I can't think of an appropriate infobox to use, but if anyone can I think it will help to improve the article even further. Bigdon128 (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the reference right now but the majority of WP articles do not in fact have infoboxes. There is now a picture, although I rather think that it needs a caption etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make clear that I said "that I've seen" and "infobox or picture". Nevertheless, there is a picture at the start of the article now, which is the main thing. Thanks, Bigdon128 (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

2 minor editorial notes

1) "...in accordance with ...Accords...." Substitute 'keeping'.

2) More in terms of content, claiming to be nationalist and being dominated by communists are not internally self-contradictory or necessarily indicative of large-scale deceit, though may be construed as such. So, the use of 'but' in one of the earlier sentences is something of an issue. Every battle of the Cold War was different (small and large), and recognizing this in wikipedia history articles would make the relationship between the politics and economics more balanced in the reader's mind. The extent to which the Vietnam War was a battle for ethnic and national self-determination as contrasted with a battle over global political and economic perspective and approach by Cold Warriors cannot be over-emphasized (if we are to be honest).

I am not an expert on the topic, and the article appears wholly well-written and close to balanced, as far as I have had time to read it, with these exceptions.173.15.152.77 (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A full reading gives a better impression of the slightly off-sounding #2, with the conclusion, in particular, in mind. Removing that 'but' still seems appropriate to me, though.173.15.152.77 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't this article be at Pham Ngoc Thao (sans diacritics), like other articles about Vietnamese notables (e.g., Ngo Dinh Nhu, Ngo Dinh Diem)? —howcheng {chat} 05:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential source

The following biography of Lucien Conein is relatively recent and outlines his role in the 1963 South Vietnamese coup:

Rust, William J. (December 2019). "CIA Operations Officer Lucien Conein: A Study in Contrasts and Controversy" (PDF). Studies in Intelligence. 63 (4). Washington, D.C.: Center for the Studies of Intelligence: 43-58. Retrieved June 14, 2020.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Perhaps someone more familiar with subject matter can tell where it might fill in the gaps. - Location (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)