Talk:President of Vietnam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Osiris (talk · contribs) 12:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting on a response from the nominator. I see two obvious problems impeding a detailed review: there are two maintenance tags that need addressing, and there is a placeholder image, which is not encouraged. Osiris (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I can't do anything with the placeholder image... There is no image of him. --TIAYN (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review

This has the makings of a good article, but there are some issues that will need to be delt with.

Firstly, there is a lack of secondary sources: a large percentage of the information in the article is sourced directly to various segments of the constitution. While some statements are simply descriptive and would be difficult to interpret differently, a couple of them rely on comparisons of different versions of the constitution. It would be preferrable for these kinds of analyses to be sourced to a secondary source, in order to comply implicitly with WP:PSTS.

The section titled "duties, powers and responsibilities" is based almost entirely on the descriptions of these traits as given in the constitution. A rehashing of how the constitution writes it is not my idea of a comprehensive description of the subject. There is also often a great discrepancy between an office's theoretical power and duties and those it actually entails. So the natural question would be: how do seconday sources interpret the president's role?

Its all about Politburo rank... All major decisions in Vietnam are made through the Politburo... Other than that, the constitution is followed. But a president, such as the current president of Vietnam, is the leader of Vietnam.. The last Vietnamese head of state to be leader of Vietnam was Ho Chi Minh.. No office in Vietnam has de jure power, the only body which has remained powerful, without losing much influence, is the Politburo, but the power of that body is weakening... This is already mentioned, but should it be clarified?? --TIAYN (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You've said that nobody has de jure power, so perhaps explain the de facto power (or lack thereof?) that the president has. The section we're talking about here only describes the role as it's given in the constitution (i.e., de jure power). So what the section needs is a description of the de facto situation as reliable secondary sources put it. Osiris (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there is none; the only thing a person need really, is majority support in either the Politburo or the Central Committee or both. There is no system. --TIAYN (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. So then... write that in the article? To balance out theory vs. reality. Osiris (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence or two about it in the history section... --TIAYN (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller sourcing issues

Done Ref 4 links to quite a large document, so should specify specific page(s) or section(s).
The section of the document linked to in Ref 5 looks like a reproduction of a section in ref 4. It might be preferrable to merge the refnotes, to mark that as public-domain material also (since some of it appears word-for-word in the article).

They are similar, but not the same... --TIAYN (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Is the page in ref 8 correct? Page 51 appears to be about Vietnam in the Middle Ages...
Could you please clarify what ref 11 is? Are the links down the bottom important? because they're all dead.

None of the links are dead (at least for me)... If that link is dead for you, it might be a software issue.... none of the links are dead (I just checked them). --TIAYN (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the links in the article... the reference leads to what looks like a contents page with a list of links. Which links, or which sections, verify the text? Osiris (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the links are used.. --TIAYN (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well several of them are dead, according to a quick 404 check. Osiris (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and style

The quality of the prose is excellent.
The lead is a good summary, although some items don't seem to appear in the body... which is okay, I guess, but they should probably have citations. One example is the bit about the Vice President assuming the role of acting president. Another is the opening description, and it sounds a bit like a line from a political pamphlet. Was this taken from the lead of President of Croatia?

I was inspired to write the article after reading the President of Croatia article, so yes, the lead is heavily influenced by that article. --TIAYN (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the opening sentence is taken pretty much word-for-word from that article – that's fine (I've put an attribution template at the top of the talk page), but since it comes from the Croatian constitution, one could reasonably challenge its applicability here while it's not verified. Osiris (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not really, the constitutions are very similar. --TIAYN (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then what part of the Vietnamese constitution verifies the statements written? It needs a source... is what I'm saying. Osiris (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

everything which is mentioned in the lead is mentioned in the body - I have checked five times... If you see something which is not mentioned in the lead, please say what it is. --TIAYN (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I listed them directly above, but I'll do it again: the part about the Vice President assuming the role of acting president, and the opening description. The first predicate of the opening sentence is fine, but the second and third ("maintains the regular and coordinated operation and stability of the national government system and safeguards the independence and territorial integrity of the country") are not sufficiently reflective of what's written in the body. There are, of course, references to his role in government and defence, but it never goes quite as far to say that he maintains stability or safeguards territorial integrity. The line is pretty loaded, so I'd like it to have a reference. If it's true, it shouldn't be difficult to source. Osiris (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done To comply with guidelines on reusing public-domain material, where text from the constitution appears in the article, please attribute the source, as you have with the U.S. government document.
Done I'm not keen on the gallery, especially with the placeholder image being there... but it could be argued that there is an encyclopaedic purpose to it. You might also want to include a {{commonscat|Presidents of Vietnam}} box.

That's my full review of this article. Thanks for your patience! Osiris (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this review now done? Looks like it but can't fully tell. Wizardman 15:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its active, but its a slow process... --TIAYN (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is very well written but there hasn't been any response to my prompts regarding the issues with sourcing (unsourced claims, possible original research, a reference using dead links). It's been a fair while now, and I don't think this appears to be going anywhere any time soon. So let's close this for now and we can try again at a later stage. Thanks for your patience and good luck for your other nominations! Osiris (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]