Talk:Battle of Quang Tri (1968)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Numerous link issues - duplicate links, linking of terms not on first use, etc.
 * Add the acronym for PAVN the first time the full name is used.
 * Why is "Allied Forces" capitalized? I don't think I've ever seen the phrase used as a proper noun to refer to US/ARVN units.
 * "They were pursued by the American forces in a circular formation[20] forced contact with the fleeing Communists over the next ten days." - something is missing here.
 * I haven't checked, but I assume that some text in the article comes directly from PD US government sources (given the template at the top of the references section) - while this is not a copyright violation, it is plagiarism, and any directly copied text needs to be rewritten.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I wonder where the number of ~2,000 men for the PAVN forces comes from? The text suggests a significantly higher number, since the 4 regular BNs from the 823th RGT plus the 814th MF BN alone would be around 2,200, and that does not include the various other elements involved.
 * "enemy" to refer solely to the Communist side is POV
 * What makes historyplace.com or historynet.com WP:RSes? ✅
 * Couple of lines need citations - see the tags
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Troop strength numbers should be added to the ARVN and US sections (especially since the numbers are not sourced in the infobox)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I am somewhat concerned with how much the article relies on official US Army and ARVN sources - I would recommend either replacing them independent sources or including material from the official Vietnamese history (which has been rather handily translated into English) for balance (or preferably, both).
 * 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:
 * Failing per comment by nominator here, too busy to address the review at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Failing per comment by nominator here, too busy to address the review at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)