Talk:Battle of Ban Me Thuot/GA1

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

Reviewer: CreationofGod (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Overall the article was good, but I would put forward the following suggestions:
 * Firstly, you could use cite book to format your referencese, and it should be organised alphabetically with the author's surname appearing first (eg. Thach, Pham N).
 * Secondly, your background is a bit short IMO and seems to focus slightly more on the North Vietnamese. You could provide some information on the South Vietnamese side; what was their situation politically and militarily before the battle??
 * Thirdly, after a person's full name had been mentioned once, you only need to use their surname thereafter when referring to them again, without mentioning their rank.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Your article is well-referenced.
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The coverage is good, with a good view from both sides of the battle.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * Consider that most of the sources were taken from the Vietnamese communists, the article seem to cover the South Vietnamese side very well, in line with the rule of neutrality.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * This part is fine


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
 * The images were used appropriately to highlight the event in question, with correct licensing.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Generally this article was very well-written, it covered the event very well. I will let it pass as GA Class.CreationofGod (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article, highly appreciate it.Canpark (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)