Talk:Lê Duẩn/GA1

GA Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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

Reviewer:  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 04:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * OK won't use it anymore This article makes remarkably promiscuous use of the semicolon, and I'd say in most (maybe all) cases it's unnecessary—and probably incorrect. I'd avoid using it unless you were positive it was necessary.
 * Done Sometimes "COMECON", sometimes "Comecon". Be consistent.
 * Done Massive overlinking. Please purge.
 * Done Actually, there's still a lot of this, and an awful lot of repeatlinking. There's a script that's good at captching duplicate links.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Done redundant: ""
 * Done was active? ""
 * Early life and career
 * Done should this sentence be starting with "At first"? I think a comma or something is in order.  ""
 * Done drop the comma: ""
 * Done shouldn't "communist party" be capitalized? ""
 * Done these commas aren't necessary: ""
 * Done the comma makes it seem like "his thesis" and The Road to the South are different things: ""
 * Political infighting and power
 * Done "some"—for example, who? See WP:WEASEL. ""
 * Done Colon instead of semicolon? ""
 * Done comma unnecessary: ""
 * Done "": "To strengthen"?
 * Done "" ==> protégé 
 * Vietnam War
 * Done "" ==> "...Vietnam, though..."
 * Done "": need an endash for number ranges
 * Done "": drop "that"
 * Done "": why the italics?
 * Done ": funny mix of tenses
 * Done "": why the italics?
 * Done "": congratulated for liberating?
 * Economy
 * Done "": was optimistic
 * Done "": "would prove" ==> "proved"
 * Done "" ==> "Vietnam developed"
 * Done "": unnecessary editorializing
 * Done "": this statement is a little hard to swallow. Surely this is hyperbole? "impossible" ==> "very difficult"?
 * Done "": is "(Vietnam)" supposed to be in there? Is there some reason to leave it there?
 * Done "": drop "as history would prove"
 * Done "": drop "US" after first usage.  In fact, the first usage isn't even necessary (USD is usually implied by "$")
 * Done "": unlink "$", and drop the space between the "$" and the number
 * Relations with the Eastern Bloc
 * Done "": "sent" ==> "send"
 * Done "": I'm having trouble parsing this sentence
 * Done "": drop "of"
 * Done "": drop "US"
 * Done "": who?
 * Relations with China
 * Done "": parentheses followed by parentheses is awkward to look at. Could this be rearranged or reworded?
 * Done "": a comma after "greeting" would be clearer
 * Done "": unlink "President of the United States"
 * Done "": cut second instance to "Accords" to reduce repetition?
 * Done ": "were drifting" ==> "drifted"
 * Done "": "Later on," ==> "Later, on"
 * Relations with Kampuchea and the Sino–Vietnamese War
 * Done Not even a short summary for this section?
 * I'm working on it; would it be possible to postpone the rest of the review until saturday??? (I've been conscripted to the army - I don't have much free-time during work-days). --TIAYN (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Last years and death
 * Done ": redundant "briefly" and "temporary". I'd drop "briefly".
 * Political beliefs
 * Done "" Why the semicolon?  Why the italics?
 * Done "": "since he believed"/"since it was believed"?
 * Done "": is there any need for this acronym? It's not used afterwards.
 * Done "": drop the comman after "reforms"
 * Done "": not "Marxist–Leninist"?
 * Done link "comprador"
 * Done "": where does this quotation terminate?
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * As far I as I know, this won't affect whether the article passes or fails, but the article makes extensive use of sfn. This creates short footnotes with links to the references, but the links don't point anywhere unless "|ref=harv" is set in cite book, etc
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * "Done ": Is this universally accepted? I'm no expert on the subject, but it sure sounds like something that could be challenged.
 * "Done ": sounds awful POV to me. Reword for neutrality. (removed, why I wrote this I don't know.....)
 * "Done " (removed, this is actually wrong, really wrong)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Done Only one image, which is under copyright, but is tagged Attribution.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Done There is only one image. Are there no other possible images that could be used to illustrate the artice?
 * Done File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1979, MiNr 2463.jpg has been marked for review. It was created in 1979, and is almost certainly under copyright.  It will likely be removed from WikiCommons when it does get reviewed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I'm satisfied the article now meets the GA requirements.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done There is only one image. Are there no other possible images that could be used to illustrate the artice?
 * Done File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1979, MiNr 2463.jpg has been marked for review. It was created in 1979, and is almost certainly under copyright.  It will likely be removed from WikiCommons when it does get reviewed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I'm satisfied the article now meets the GA requirements.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)