Template:Did you know nominations/Sigma I-64 war game

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Fuebaey (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigma I-64 war game

(

)

... that the Sigma I-64 war game held in April 1964 predicted that the U.S. could put 500,000 troops into Vietnam and still lose?

Reviewed: Skyscraper Live
Comment: The Sigma I-64 war game has been called "eerily prophetic" for its prescient prediction that the United States would not win the Vietnam War. Ironically, it was neither the first nor the last Sigma war game to come to that conclusion. Nevertheless, six months after Sigma I-64, the U.S. chose to use the Tonkin Gulf incident to start the war. They eventually committed 500,000 troops. As predicted. They lost. As predicted.
DISCLOSURE: The lead to this article is being used in several allied articles. NONE of that lead should be counted for qualifying any article for DYK.

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 20:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Article length and age are fine. Tone is neutral, there are no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, and reliable sources are used. Hook seems OK. However, the article does not comply with WP:LEAD. The Lead section should summarize and provide an overview of the article, not introduce important facts that are not discussed in the body of the article below. In particular, the Lead should summarize the simulation and results sections (like the section on this game in the Sigma war games article does), and the information in the Lead about background of the game, the teams and operation of the war game should be moved to the body of the article below and merely summarized in the Lead section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe this rewrite may answer your concern.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I think this is good to go now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)