Talk:Operation Crimp/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Hope my usual copyedit didn't change any meaning inadvertently. Apart from that just a couple of things:
 * If you're going to describe the Iron Triangle as "notorious", I'd do so at first mention (Background, not Prelude)
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "...the landing zone was subsequently switched to a safer location" -- since it's debatable whether anything is "safe" in a war zone, can we say "less-exposed position" or some such instead?
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "During the course of these activities one engineer died of asphyxiation, while a number of other fatalities among the searchers were caused by snipers" -- is that the same engineer whose experience is described in detail three paras earlier? If so, this confuses because it could be interpreted as yet another engineer dying.  Perhaps you could include it as part of a total (use the word) number of casualties, so people know it's summarising what was described earlier.
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I think the tone of the article is neutral and balanced, however detail-wise I'm just a bit concerned that it's not always focussing enough on the Americans who were there as well as the Australians. For example, we get an explanation of almost every Australian death or wounding, yet when we hear of "the Viet Cong using hit-and-run and ambush tactics to inflict casualties on the Americans", or "Concealed in well-camouflaged ambush positions, the communists inflicted heavy casualties on the Americans", the detail is missing (what sort of casualties did the Americans suffer -- how many, how bad?). As an aside re. the last-mentioned part, if the Yanks "were involved in only minor skirmishes with the Viet Cong", it sounds inconsistent that they suffered "heavy casualties"...
 * This is true, will have to see what I can do, although it should be considered that 1RAR suffered disproportionately more casualties than any of the US battalions deployed, and was involved in the think of the fighting. This in itself should excuse some additional weight being placed on recounting their activities I think. Anotherclown (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * The issue of coverage mentioned above is also reflected in the references: 8 Australian compared to 2 American (great you have a Vietnamese one as well though).
 * Fair call, and it was a concern I had previously also. I have attempted to add American sources, although there was little else available to me. The American official history is used in this account but adds no more detail than is included in the article. In many ways American histories of the Vietnam War (IMO only of course) seem to focus on a higher level than Australian histories, due to the much larger formations they deployed. Operations such as Crimp, while significant to the individuals involved don't seem to get covered in detail in American works. This isn't to say that there isn't a book out there that could add this detail, but only that I haven't found it at least. Anotherclown (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I get your point about the relative detail of the US vs. Australian histories matching the relative 'importance' of this op vis-a-vis US vs. Australian involvement in the war, and I certainly don't want to 'even' up the coverage here by dropping detail concerning the Australians. If you genuinely feel that the balance of this article matches the level of scholarship out there, there may not be much that can be done.  If you can have another look round, perhaps put the word out again (I've seen your earlier missive on the talk page since writing the above!) to some of our US MilHist colleagues (maybe YellowMonkey as well), we can say we've done all we can -- don't be fussed by any time limits on this, I think it's a fine article deserving of GA and am happy to leave the review open more than a week to try and get a bit more US detail. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers again Ian. I will be out of contact now for a bit due to real life so it will have to wait until then anyway. I appreciate you taking the time to review the article and for correcting my failings re the WP:MOS (still can't believe I missed so many). Will get back to it shortly though. Anotherclown (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Howdy, I have done a bit more research and added a few (minor) American refs. I have also checked out a few of the major American works in the area and have found that Operation Crimp only gets a passing mention (usually one or two sentences and nothing more. Even the US 173rd Airborne Bde history deals with the operation in a short paragraph. What I haven't been able to find is a book on the US 3rd Brigade and I think it is here that the article is really lacking in coverage. Also a search on Google Books didn't yield very much. I will keep looking though. Some of the books I have consulted so far (without success) include (in addition to those refs added):
 * Casey, Michael, Clark Dougan, Denis Kennedy, Shelby Stanton, et al., The Army at War. Boston: Boston Publishing Company, 1987.
 * Palmer, Dave R, Summons of the Trumpet. New York: Ballentine Books, 1984.
 * Stanton, Shelby L., The Rise and Fall of an American Army: U.S. Ground Forces in Vietnam, 1965-1973. New York: Dell, 1985. Anotherclown (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Edward F Murphy's book on the 173rd is almost entirely focused on the Battle of Dak To and only has two paragraphs on OC (nothing to be added) and the other Boston Pub Co books listed at Battle of Dak To don't have anything more to add  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking mate. Anotherclown (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I can see the effort that's recently gone into ensuring that the US side of things is covered as much as is possible given what appears to be the less prominent part it plays in their histories of the war compared to Australia's, so once you've completed your latest round of edits, give me a yell on here and I'll give it one more read and we can complete the review -- hell, I think you should probably go for ACR after this...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok its late, I'm buggered and I think I may have finally finished. If its not too much trouble please have another read and let me know what you think. Thanks again for all your help on this one. And thanks also to Auntieruth55 and AustralianRupert who both dug up some useful articles for me. Cheers Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, looking fine now I think, just made a couple of minor copyedits. One thing, "as previously described" always sounds a bit clumsy to me in WP -- we don't know the name of the engineer who died do we, so we could mention it first up and then again the second time, meaning we could drop "as previously described" and still avoid confusion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was Corporal Robert Bowtell. Details at AWM Roll of Honour can be found here: . — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it was Bowtell but I don't have my books with me to be sure. That said I purposely didn't use names as he is no more notable than any of the other 150 soldiers (of both sides) who died in the battle. Perhaps there might be some other way of rewording it? Anotherclown (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, look it's okay as is. If we're not 100% certain of the name and if, as you say, we haven't named others, leave as is. This is GA, if reviewers at higher level don't like "as previously described", they can suggest other wording (I can't think of anything right now). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reworded it a little anyway, so hopefully that removes both the confusion and the clumsy wording. Anotherclown (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Related to earlier point, are there no images of US troops to balance the Aussie ones?
 * Actually the images in the article were added by another user, as I could only find one (Aussie) one myself. I will flick him a message and see if he can did up some American images. I have looked previously but to no avail. Anotherclown (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This is very good, very well written; if you can address the above points within the next week or so that'd be great... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all of your help Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment - rather too many "however"'s in the "fighting continues, 10-13 january" section. You also have a repetition of the word "continued" in the first paragraph. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, reworded now thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)