Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group/GA1

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

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. I usually like to give general suggestions first, and then give more specific suggestions once they are addressed. Here are some initial suggestions: The lack of in-line citations is the biggest problem I see. I'll put the article on hold for seven days to allow for these changes. Nikki ♥  311  22:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have a lead that is three or four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
 * Linking dates is no longer required, and a lot of reviewers (especially for WP:FAC) ask them to be de-linked.
 * Be consistent on how dates are written. In the infobox they are written "day-month" and in the prose they are written "month-day".
 * There is a good deal of uncited text. There should be at least a citation in every paragraph.
 * This last question may be because of my naivete about government goings on, but how could unpublished government documents be sources? Aren't they, um, unpublished?
 * The seven days are up, so I am failing the article due to a lack of response. Nikki  ♥  311  20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to the question above about unpublished documents: A lot of documents that have never been published can be found (and xeroxed) in the National Archives. Ed Moise (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the criteria raised in the review have been addressed fully. Raising rating to "A" class. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead expanded
 * 2) Dates delinked
 * 3) Dates appeared consistent when I edited, someone else actioned
 * 4) Text appears adequately cited (claiming expert opinion: historian)
 * 5) Unpublished government documents are sources: archives (claiming expert opinion: historian)