Talk:Attack on Camp Holloway/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney 12:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * 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 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.
 * Done.Canpark (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * Done.Canpark (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)