Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1965 South Vietnamese coup

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1965 South Vietnamese coup[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)
Toolbox

Another coup, and after a year of turmoil General Nguyen Khanh was finally toppled in a US-backed effort. It was basically two coups in one. One group started it, and another group intervened to stop them, and complete their own coup on top of it. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - very well-written and well-researched article.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I can't find much wrong with this. I believe this is up to standard and have only a few comments. (I will read over the article again tomorrow when I'm not falling asleep and see if I can find anything else to comment on):
    • there are no dab links, ext links all work, alt text is present (no action required);
    • I made a couple of minor tweaks, please check that you agree with them;
    • can you please check the ISBN for the Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War work? The Advisor script reports that the ISBN listed may not be correct;
    • "3 km west of central Saigon" in the Failure to capture Bien Hoa Air Base section could have a convert template added to it to show the equivalent distance in miles for those that don't understand kilometres. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's fine. I've checked the ISBN. I made a mistake and wrote the number down wrong when I first used in 2007 and transmitted it to too many pages. Got rid of it last year on an FAC but some were evidently still there, and reproduced. Well it was good because I hadn't noticed that some books eg Hammer and Langguth had a longer title that was not present on the spine of the article and I only used the shorthand when I filled it in YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: There are some typos and tone issues in the article.
"He phoned Saigon asking for re-supply, but was unsurprising denied his wish" - shouldn't that be 'unsurprisingly' or the word deleted?
"Khanh finally agreed to leave if he was given a dignified send-off, so the other generals arranged a ceremony at Tan Son Nhut on February 24, where military bands serenaded him" - this seems a little off to me. Maybe it could be broken down into two sentences.
"and was sent on a meaningless world tour," - again, something of an editorial voice here. If you're going to call it 'meaningless,' it might be better to find a quotable source that uses the word.

I saw some other grammar-type issues earlier in the article, but those were the most notable to me.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprising culled, probably doesn't need to be said. Tweaked the second and attached meaningless to ref, as it was indeed there YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
  • The citation checker reveals a number of errors (all cases of multiple references containing the same content). These will need to be fixed (to use it click edit at the top of the article, click 'Error check', select all check boxes and hit the 'Check' button);
Does one need some software installed as I can't see any gadget. I looked manually but can't see any identical citations separately; I presume the tool means that I made a redundant multiple expansion of the same ref name tag, in which case it wouldn't give any visible redundancy, and it seems rather horrible to search for it manually YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry mate I think my instructions were a bit off. What you need to do is click on the 'Edit' tab at the top of the article, then click on 'Cite', then on 'Error check'. Hopefully that should work. I think you are right though it is most likely just using the same named ref on a few occasions, not a failure to consolidate the refs themselves, so its pretty minor anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the LHS the toolbox has six buttons, the last two are cite and permanent link. If I open up the page for editing, these two disappear :( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to jump in here. To get this tool to work you need to add it to your gadgets in your preferences. Click "My Preferences" in the top right of your screen. Click the "Gadgets" tag. Scroll down to the Editing gadgets section. Tick the "reftools" option. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Installed and fixed. Thanks for that I didn't know about all these good tools. No wonder I'm not efficient YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. :-) No worries. Just to let you know Anotherclown is on a course, so might not respond quickly. It all depends on the dargens. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the images may need a fair use rationale for use in this article (or be removed from the article) as it appears to still be under copyright: File:Bien Hoa Air Base-aerial.jpg;  Done
Removed it. I should have checked and saw it was a current photo; I just assumed it was a USAF one from the 1960s YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a few tweaks, please check that they didn't alter your intended meaning; Done
Fine YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence in the 'Background' section is problematic and doesn't make sense to me..."In August, the Vietnam War expanded with the Tonkin Gulf incident, a disputed encounter between North Vietnamese and American naval vessels—Washington accused the communists of attacking their boats in international waters." It should be reworded a little, and probably the first and second paragraphs merged IMO;
Done I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this is problematic grammatically. I have tweaked, please check you're happy with it.Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the phrase "crying out" in the last para of the 'Coup begining' section seems like it should be reworded to me... perhaps "broadcasting the message" or something similar? Done
Changed YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first para of the 'Announcement of the coup' section you write: Kiem said that "Lodge was wrong in encouraging the coup against Diem rather than correcting mistakes". No other mention of Henry Cabot Lodge occurs in the article... perhaps his position and role in the 1963 coup could be explained? Also he was later reappointed as ambassador and took over from Taylor (I persume in the wake of the 1965 coup but I'm no expert on this topic), should this be mentioned? Done
I've explained Lodge in a sentence or two. I'm not putting in the stuff about Taylor as that was more because Lodge was seen as a better and smoother diplomat, rather than the fact he was implicated in any coup, as the US was always implicated once something happened. Lodge stopped in 1964 to campaign in the US election YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers , happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "At the same time" is used twice in the 'Failure to capture Bien Hoa Air Base and stalemate' section, perhaps reword one? Done
Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite these points (many are just suggestions for improvement), overall I think this is an excellent article and intend to support when they are dealt with. Anotherclown (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding my support as all my concerns have been taken care of. Apologies for taking so long to finalise this review (RL....). Well done YellowMonkey. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/1965_South_Vietnamese_coup&oldid=1088198327"