Talk:Battle of Kham Duc/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * During the Tet Offensive of 1968, the Vietnam People's Army (VPA) 2nd Division tried to capture the of Da Nang but their attacks were quickly blunted by elements of the U.S. 1st Marine Division, the Americal Division, and the Korean Brigade. "tried to capture the of Da Nang"?
 * I hope this read better: 2nd Division tried to capture Da Nang but their attacks were quickly blunted by elements of the U.S. 1st Marine Division, the Americal Division, and the Korean Brigade that were guarding the city.Canpark (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Viet Cong initiated large-scale attacks on the South Vietnamese capital of Saigon and all 34 provincial cities, towns, villages, and major military installations throughout South Vietnam. This reads badly: Sounds like there were a total of 34 provincial cities, towns, villages and major military installions, which i don't think is right.
 * I have rewrite the sentence like this: Towards the end of January, regular units of the Vietnam People’s Army and the Viet Cong initiated large-scale attacks on Saigon and all 34 provincial cities of South Vietnam. Several major towns, villages, and allied military installations throughout the country were also attacked during the same period.Canpark (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References check out. Assume good faith for off-line sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good coverage
 * 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):
 * Appropriately tagged and captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed.
 * OK, thanks for fixing those bits, I am happy to list this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for reviewing my work.Canpark (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was well-researched and written. Thank you for your efforts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.97.5 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for fixing those bits, I am happy to list this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for reviewing my work.Canpark (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was well-researched and written. Thank you for your efforts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.97.5 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)