Talk:Battle of Lima Site 85/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:29, 23 July 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

 * Some disambiguation links need attention Hmong, Posthumous and YEO
 * I've added the link for the Hmong people. Unfortunately, there isn't any pages for 'posthumous' suitable for the context used in this article or 'Yeo', which is a Laotian mountain tribe.Canpark (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

also appears to be a primary source document and if it remains the three citations need to be condensed using ref name
 * What males the web links a reliable source:
 * http://combat-skyspot.tripod.com/commandoclub.htm
 * http://www.mekongexpress.com/laos/photoalbum/nam_bac_photo.htm
 * http://wikimapia.org/12481567/Nam-Bac-abandoned-runaway-Lima-Site-203-2-photos

not sure what this one is referencing
 * http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/news/2004/AFMIA10705.pdf

This one goes to a blank page
 * http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmsea/accounted/pmsea_acc_p_tx.pdf

This one is also blank
 * http://limasite85.us/memorials1.html

This one is a 404 error
 * I have replaced some of those dubious webpages with print sources instead.Canpark (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All web links need correct formatting access date or publishing date, publisher and author if there is one
 * Done.Canpark (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The tables is the Prelude section need citations
 * DoneCanpark (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The section US personnel missing in action at Lima Site 85 reads like a memorial is there any need to list their names, numbers and ranks would suffice
 * With above it can be classed as biased as the same attention is not given to the North Vietnamese casualties.
 * When I rewritten and expanded the article, I actually removed the "US personnel missing in action at Lima Site 85" section for the same reasons which you've outlined. However, another editor was adamant the particular section in question should not be removed, on the grounds that the presence of those 19 U.S. personnel were crucial to the story of Lima Site 85. The exchange between myself and that editor could be found on the discussion of this article. No other article on Wikipedia dedicate a section to MIA soldiers in battle, apart from this one, so I feel there is no need for it here either. So I would highly appreciate your opinion, as the reviewer, on the section in question.Canpark (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would delete content as WP:NOTMEMORIAL, just leaving numbers and ranks. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to apply that rule, but it might trigger an edit war with the other editor. Earlier he reinstated the blank web reference, and other non-academic references on the article, which highlight the hostility I'm experiencing here.Canpark (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quote the GA review not memorial and NPOV in the edit summary.Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTMEMORIAL relates to the subject of articles, it does not prohibit a section of an article addressing missing personnel losses. The Battle of LS85 was significant for several reasons - the air attack and the large loss of life among USAF personnel, many of whom remain MIA. Canpark is welcome to provide details of the one casualty the NVA claim to have suffered. Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you ask for opinion on the talk page see if a consensus can be reached. Add a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history asking for editors to give an opinion.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done so, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Word choice both USAF and U.S. Air Force is used it should be consistent throughout the article
 * I tried to replace "U.S. Air Force" with "USAF" wherever I could, but my eyes are fairly tired now.Canpark (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the last line has to do with the article Memorials to Combat Spot and Arc Light airmen are co-located on Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
 * I have removed that sentence because it made no sense either.Canpark (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Combat SkySpot was the operational name for the radar bombing system at LS85. The memorial on Guam incorporates a memorial to the men lost on LS85. Memorials to a battle rightly belong on the battle page. Mztourist (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On hold

 * There now seems to be an edit war over content between Mztourist and Canpark. I find myself unable to support promotion to GA class unless you can sort this out. You can of course as well as trying to get consensus over memorials ask for a second opinion at GA nominations. On hold

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I don't think its unreasonable to keep the sections that I have reinstated and which Canpark seems absolutely determined to delete. Mztourist (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If the section in question are going to stay, I suggest we rename it "Recovery of U.S. personnel missing in action" or something along those lines. After all, the joint recovery effort conducted by the Vietnamese and U.S. governments are relevant, as the content itself suggest. And I want to get rid of the current title which reads like a memorial. I also found a webpage on Technical Sergeant Patrick L. Shannon on the POW Network, which I will replace the dead link.Canpark (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Canpark They haven't been recovered, that's the whole point, most are still missing. How does the title make it sound like a memorial? Mztourist (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the title reads like something off a memorial wall, that's my first impression of it anyway. I don't really feel the need to argue over the section as far as this. I am satisfied with the content as it is, and I am merely suggesting the rewording of the section. That's it.Canpark (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How about including it in the Aftermath section which which is neutral and consistent with other battle of articles on Wikipedia. Then it would not seem to be giving undue weight to US forces. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, that is a very reasonable suggestion and I would have no problem with that.Canpark (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest including it in the aftermath section, thats where things of this nature are generally included anyway.XavierGreen (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If Mztourist agree with Jim Sweeney's suggestion, I'll let him move the section. Because this has dragged far enough, and is holding up the review process unnecessarily.Canpark (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of detail about the US MIAs and their recovery so it should remain under a separate heading rather than getting squeezed into the Aftermath section, particularly if readers are interested in the specific issue of US MIAs from this and other battles. Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in case you have not noticed, there is an article on Vietnam_War_POW/MIA_issue. If readers are interested on the topic of U.S. MIA's from other battles, than it obviously belong in other articles but not here. And I repeat again, if that little patch mean that much to you, than let's keep it but use decent references instead of dead references.Canpark (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Canpark of course I know of the Vietnam_War_POW/MIA_issue article. It provides a good overview of the whole issue, whereas this section addresses specific MIAs and efforts towards their recovery, something that I believe is of general interest to anyone who would read this page or to anyone wanting to read more specific information about MIAs and recovery efforts. As I have said already on the History talk page, I never put in dead links, but they may have died with the lapse of time or as they have been deleted by you or reinstated by me. I'm pleased that you finally acknowledge that the section should stay in, motivated no doubt by your desire to push yet another of your articles through GA. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles like this do not belong to me or anyone, and I'm only one of many individuals who are nominating articles for GA. If you have a problem, swallow it son. I appreciate the content of the section but not the references that were originally used. Enough said.Canpark (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Canpark I and other editors have pointed out various issues with your writing and sourcing on your talk page. On the LS85 page you have in the past deleted entire sections marking the actions m for minor edits. You put articles up for GA too quickly Mztourist (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is consensus not to include a list of the dead here and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with one suggestion that names of the deceased should be removed, and the remainder of the US MIA section integrated with the Aftermath section. Unless there are clear objections from other editors, aside from Mztourist, I would consider implement the suggestion based on the consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Hopefully that will resolve the issue once and for all.Canpark (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus not yet reached, discussion has to remain open for at least 5 days, In any event Canpark has failed to adopt the suggestion of Saberwyn and simply deleted the whole section without incorporating any information into the aftermath sectio. I have reinstated the entire section until 5 days has elapsed and then we can see what changes need to be made. Mztourist (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems other editors are generally against memorials. I did incorporate two paragraphs into the aftermath section, so I suggest you have a look at the history of this article, because you obviously did not read it.Canpark (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok passing this, but keeping it on my watchlist. Try and work together or of not move to other projects where there is no conflict of intrest. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)