Talk:Phan Đình Phùng

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Reasonably well-written (I'll be doing a little copy-editing here and there), but some WP:MoS issues. Remember that according to MoS, cquotes should not be used for general block quoting, instead regular <blockquote> formatting is to be used. Also, block quotes are only for quotes of four+ lines or multiple paragraphs. Next, the article needs an appropriate infobox - probably best to use one from WikiProject Biography.

2. Factually accurate?: Good basic citations to references. If you're eventually aiming for FA, I'd suggest finding more than two references, and making sure to cite all potentially controversial facts, such as claims of exact numerical/dollar figures.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all major points concisely.

4. Neutral point of view?: Gives fair representation to all major points of view.

5. Article stability? Not the subject of edits wars, or of future events.

6. Images?: Accounted for with proper tags where present.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky ^Talk 19:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you

1. I have done the quote style changes and the infobox. Do you have any specifics about the prose or just the general parts?
2. As regards to 2, my style is to get a book in front of me and then type up. I don't tend to write off my head and then search around for a book or a webpage. As such, my articles tend to follow the books relatively closely. In the cases where there is only one ref at the end of the para, it was because I got the whole para from the page in the book

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work on the MoS stuff. As to the general prose, I have read some repetitive stuff (French forces surrounded his forces etc.). I'll do some combing, but GA is not FA. As long as it is clear, neutral and cited, it meets the criteria. VanTucky ^Talk 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm done with my copyediting, so it would seem all the issues of the review have been dealt with. Thanks for your hard work everyone! VanTucky ^Talk 01:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Impressions and suggestions

Phùng seems like an interesting person, and I enjoyed learning about him; thanks for inviting me! :) Here are my initial impressions of the article as I read through it; I hope they're helpful in reaching FA. Willow (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• The lead and the article seem rather short for an FA; do they really cover all the scholarship on Phùng? Willow (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Given that the lead is only two paragraphs long, the first paragraph seems to dwell too long on minor details? For example, I suspect that casual readers won't want to know who "placed first in the metropolitan imperial examinations in 1877". I'd advise filling in the lead with the stories and facts that made Phùng historic and memorable. For example, you might expand the first two sentences of the second paragraph; they seem like they're leaving out a lot and the story line isn't clear. Willow (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• This sentence seems hard to parse: "where he punished a Vietnamese Catholic priest on charges of harassing local non-Catholics (with tacit support from French missionaries)." Which missionaries, and were they supporting the priest (as I assume) or the punishment? Willow (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Consistent use of Phùng, instead of Phung? Willow (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to say this, but the article seems a long way from FA. I would rank it as a B-class article at present, because it uses mainly one source (Marr), has few references and effectively no illustrations. The writing is OK, in that the facts are given in logical order, but at least to me, it's not vivid and certainly not compelling; it lacks a strong story-line. The article would be helped by maps showing Phùng's movements, historical and geographical context, and stronger flow in the writing. Oh, and no typos, please. ;) Willow (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

I removed notice for Vietnamese name because the fact that Vietnamese scholar (like Phan Dinh Phung) in old days should be called by his full name (Phan Dinh Phung), family name (Phan) or courtesy name (Chau Phong), not by his given name. RBD (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Le Quy Don which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

This states that the Can Vuong movement started on July 5th and cites Chapuis' work on this. However, Chapuis states that de Courcy arrived in Hue on July 3rd and the mandarins started their attack at 1 am which would make the start date July 4th Edred27 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)