Talk:Huế chemical attacks/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has a few shortcomings with respect to becoming a 'good article'.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * See dates comment below; also, I've made a few MoS fixups myself, which you should check
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Mostly, see citing comments below
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

My specific comments, in no particular order:
 * Was this put in the right class at WP:GAN? This isn't really a War and Military article, but more a World History article I would think.
 * Well, it's borderline I guess.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The date formatting is very inconsistent - some mdy with comma, one without, one in cite dmy, two in cites autoformatted; should be consistent, whatever it is.
 * Consistent spelt out format now, although the numerical format is in the notes as usual. This should be ok I think.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Protestor' is listed as an alternate spelling in some dictionaries, not others. Another editor has changed two of the occurrences to 'protester' but not changed the rest. I don't care which it is, but it should be consistent.
 * Back to O  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Diem quote "Put your Catholic officers in sensitive places. They can be trusted." should be directly cited.
 * Done  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of text beginning with "and in a report to the embassy noted ..." that isn't cited clearly. In the last sentence, who made the US threat to Diem?  Helble, someone else in the State Dept, or what?  Or should the last sentence be "... the United States should threaten to ..." meaning we're still describing Helble's thinking?
 * Clarified I think  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Who ordered the use of chemicals within ARVN? Someone on the spot, or higher up?  Was this a planned response, or improvised on the spot?  This is the major question the article leaves hanging, unless I missed it.
 * None of the sources mention commands from higher ups so I just said that the on-site people did it, rather than explicit command.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What was the extent of the injuries? Were any of them really severe, or result in lifelong effects?
 *  Er, not detailed further, although none of them died... YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's an imbalance between the 'Background' and the 'Aftermath' part of the last section; the former is far longer than the latter. In articles like this I'm never sure how much background should be supplied versus people getting by reading other articles; what's here is well written, but it's about the same size as the incident itself.  I won't hold the GA on this point, though.  But if there's any more that can be said about the effect of the incident, that should be added.  And maybe a brief recap of what happened afterward, leading to the coup.
 * The dates of the "An investigation attempted to exonerate ..." and "A further commission chaired by ..." should be added. I can't tell if these happened a few days after, or weeks or months or whatever.
 * Gave a preview of future developmenets.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The two Talk page comments/questions should be addressed.
 * Replied to them.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'June 1963' section of the Buddhist crisis article doesn't link to this article.
 *  done  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have any questions or issues with these comments, let me know. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks good, I made a few further fixups and have passed it. Referring to the above point, I put it in WP:GA, which is where another Buddhist crisis article Hue Vesak shootings is, and where Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm is in the FA list (History, not Warfare). This article is really part of a sequence with them, and its significance is much more in the history of the time than in the possibly accidental deployment of a chemical weapon. If this incident were more famous as an example of chemical warfare, such as say the Halabja poison gas attack, then the military classification would be warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)