Talk:Attack on Camp Holloway/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs · count) 12:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
[edit]- The image used in the inf box is by Hampton Broeker according to the web site. The licenses states this image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. However there is nothing on the web site [1] confirming Broeker was a member of the US forces when the pictures were taken.
- There is a picture of Broeker posing in full U.S. Army uniform, so I believe that is the best indication he was a U.S. Army soldier.Canpark (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- While it will not affect the review are there no other images available?
- The lead needs to be expanded ideally it should be around four paragraphs.
- The term U.S. as in "was a U.S. facility", needs to be United States (U.S.) on first use. While a common abbreviation and obvious from the context of the article . We can not presume everyone knows what it stands for.
- torpedo boats should be linked on first use, not the second.
- torpedoes should be linked
- from enemy forces, enemy forces is POV use North Vietnamese
- Also Viet Cong should be linked.
- General Lan Van Phat should be linked even if it creates a red link, that encourages the creation of the article.
- Link Military junta
- supporting allied operations. An explanation of who the allies are is required. Or linked.
- I've decided to use the term "Free World Military Forces" instead, because "allied forces" could be anyone depending on perspective.Canpark (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Link mortar (weapon)
- What's the difference between a combat engineer and a sapper ?
- Western historians usually refer to North Vietnamese/Viet Cong special forces as "sappers". For example, the Viet Cong 409th Battalion was a special forces unit, but non-Vietnamese sources often refer to them as "sappers". So Vietnamese "sappers" are not similar to combat engineers.Canpark (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Four ISBNs need fixing; Khoo Nicholas, Lam Quang Thi, Woods Randall and Worth Richard
- All fixed.Canpark (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nguyen, Huy Chuong does not have an ISBN
- An OCLC number is the best I can do for this one.Canpark (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good work almost there just some small points. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have provided links to the necessary articles.Canpark (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Passed GA Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have provided links to the necessary articles.Canpark (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)