Talk:Operation Frequent Wind/GA2

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 19:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial page created. I'll review properly over the next few days. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Review done - some copyediting required, as per below. I'll put on hold. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have revised to incorporate most of your comments as detailed below. Thanks Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mztourist, I don't like having to do this, but the ongoing disagreements about the trivia section are clearly running counter to the "stable" GA requirement. I'm going to have to fail the article at this stage, and encourage the editors involved to reach an enduring conclusion on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly I think its ridiculous that GA is held hostage to 1 contributor who doesn't like the In Popular Culture section. Refs have been provided but because Nikkimaria doesn't think they're good enough that stops it being approved for GA? I really think that you need to take a wider view of the stability of the article as a whole rather than focussing on that one sectionMztourist (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Done
 * "The airlift left a number of enduring images." - given that "left" can have two different meanings (one very pertinent to an airlift!), would "resulted in" work better, and make the meaning clearer in the sentence? (OR "Many enduring images were produced of the airlift."?
 * Done
 * "Preparations for the airlift already existed as a standard procedure for American embassies." - didn't quite read right to me; probably this is because you've got a specific ("the airlift") and the general ("American embassies") in the same sentence.
 * Done
 * "By mid-April, contingency plans were in place and preparations were underway" - are these the same as the standard procedures above?
 * Yes
 * "Air support was not needed as the North Vietnamese recognized that interfering with the evacuation could provoke a strong reaction from US forces." - "In the event, air support was not needed..." might improve the flow here
 * Done
 * "On 28 April, Tan Son Nhut Air Base came under artillery fire and attack from Vietnamese People's Air Force aircraft. " In the lead, the reader doesn't know what this air base is doing.
 * Done
 * "The evacuation took place primarily from Defense Attaché Office compound " - "the Defense Attache..."
 * Done
 * "began around two in the afternoon on 29 April" - date format needs to be consistent
 * Done
 * "third country nationals " - are these non-Vietnamese, Vietnamese...?
 * Done
 * "With the collapse of South Vietnam, an unknown number of VNAF helicopters and some fixed-wing aircraft flew out to the evacuation fleet. " - in the lead, you could lose "an unknown number".
 * Done
 * "Evacuation plans are standard for most American embassies" - "were standard" is probably more relevant.
 * Done
 * "approximately 8000 US citizens" - you need to be consistent in formatting of the figures (e.g. 8000 versus 8,000)
 * Done
 * "There were approximately 17,000 Vietnamese employees on embassy rolls which using an average of seven members per family meant that the number was 119,000 and taken with other categories of Vietnamese the number quickly increased to over 200,000." - you probably need to spell out that the families needed to be evacuated too. It may also be worth explaining why (imagine if someone didn't know about the Vietnam war - why do you need to evacuate Vietnamese from Vietnam?).
 * Have added "at-risk", obviously if they are at risk and need to be evacuated they would want to take their dependents with them.
 * "Option 1..." - the formatting of the bullets here doesn't look right.
 * Done
 * "On 1 April..." - there are three paragraphs here each starting with a stark date.
 * Have changed some, kept some
 * "Evacuation Control Center" - unclear why this is in capitals
 * Done
 * "Also on 1 April..." - like the third sentence, a repetition of starting sentences with dates.
 * as above
 * " C-rations and petroleum, oil and lubricants had been stockpiled, power-generating facilities had been duplicated, sanitary facilities were completed and concertina wire protected the perimeter" - C-rations needs linking or explaining; unclear why power-generating facilities (are these the same as "electricity generators", btw?) needed to be duplicated.
 * Done
 * "On 7 April... On 9 April... On 11 April... On 12 April..." - etc.
 * as above
 * "Air America" - needs linking
 * Done
 * "Marine Corps" - if you're going to abbreviate above, you need to use it in the text.
 * Done
 * "On 13 April thirteen Marines" - "13 Marines"? A single sentence paragraph here, by the way.
 * Done
 * "By late April Air America helicopters were flying several daily shuttles from TF76 to the DAO Compound to enable the 9th MAB to conduct evacuation preparations at the DAO without exceeding the Paris Peace Accords' limit of a maximum of 50 military personnel in South Vietnam, this at a time when the North Vietnamese army was overtly breaching the Peace Accords." A very long sentence. The final clause feels like editorialisation, by the way.
 * Done
 * "In late April the MSG Marines were ordered to abandon Marshall Hall/Marine House, their billet at 204 Hong Thap Tu Street (now 204 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai Street), and move into the combined recreation area in the Embassy compound." - non-military people might not know what a billet is. What is the combined recreation area? NB: I think you could safely lose the address in this sentence.
 * Billet xreffed. Address is of interest to readers who visit Saigon
 * "The two major evacuation points chosen for Operation Frequent Wind were the DAO Compound adjacent to Tan Son Nhut Airport for American civilian and Vietnamese evacuees and the US Embassy, Saigon for Embassy staff." - you need a comma after "Vietnamese evacuees"
 * Done
 * "The plan for the evacuation would see convoy buses prestaged throughout metropolitan Saigon at 28 buildings designated as pick-up points with American civilians, trained to drive those buses, standing by in town at the way stations." - unclear what the way stations here are - are they the same as the prestaged psitions, or the pickup points, or something different? If you could find an alternative verb to "prestaged" (which is very specifically military logistical!) it might help the flow.
 * Done
 * "By late March the Embassy began a thinning out of US citizens in Vietnam" - "began to reduce the number of US citizens in Vietnam"?
 * Done
 * "In late March, two or three MAC aircraft were arriving each day and these aircraft were used for the evacuation of civilians or as part of Operation Babylift." - What's operation Babylift?
 * Done
 * " rather than combat loading, each evacuee required a seat and a seatbelt, reducing the number of passengers that could be carried on each flight." - What is combat loading?
 * Done
 * "Each C-141 would carry 94 passengers while each C-130 would carry 75, although these requirements were relaxed, and then ignored altogether as the pace of the evacuation quickened"- relaxed in that they could carry more, or that they could carry less?
 * Done
 * "By 22 April 20 C-141 and 20 C-130s flights were flying evacuees out of Tan Son Nhut to Clark Air Base." - "flights a day"?
 * Done
 * "On 23 April..." - the paragraph starts to break down into dated sentences again here.
 * as above
 * "2500", "5000" - again, needs to be consistent in how commas are used in numbers
 * Done
 * " It was decided that from that time only C-130s would be used " - tense is wrong here; it needs to be "It was decided that from this time..."
 * Done
 * "Between 18 and 24 April 1975, with the fall of Saigon imminent, the Navy concentrated off..." - this brings the active part of the sentence (The Navy concentrating vessels) to the middle of the sentence; particularly if it is starting off a new section, well worth bringing that bit forwards.
 * Done
 * "Task Force 76" - this section looked a bit light on explanation, and felt (to me at least) like a stark list of vessels by name. Is there anything more we could say about this to give it more context?
 * Not really, its a group of ships assembled for a specific purpose
 * "8 21st Special Operations Squadron CH-53s and 2 40th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron HH-53s" - the "8" and "2" should be words
 * Done
 * "Tan Son Nhut under attack" - this section also falls back on starting each paragraph with a time/date. Watch the "numbers in words" issue here as well.
 * Done
 * "flightline" - I don't know what this is; I'm guessing something to do with the runway?
 * Done
 * " .51 cal and 37 mm ground fire" - worth considering here how this would read to a non-military person
 * Done
 * "At 03:58, C-130E Hercules, 72-1297, c/n 4519, of the 314th Airlift Wing and flown by a crew from the 776th Tactical Airlift Squadron, 374th Tactical Airlift Wing out of Clark Air Base, Philippines, was destroyed by a 122 mm rocket shortly after having offloaded a BLU-82 at Tan Son Nhut Air Base and taxiing to pick up evacuees. " - 72-1297, c/n 4519? A BLU-82? You could probably lose the detail of the crew if you wanted to make the sentence a bit easier to parse (the active verb is embedded right in the middle of the sentence at the moment
 * Done
 * " until one was shot down, presumably by an SA-7." - it would be helpful to say "an SA-7 missile" for non-military readers.
 * Done
 * "General Carey's threat to use the AH-1J SeaCobras flying overhead " - "the AH-1J SeaCobra helicopters" would make it clearer to non-specialists.
 * Done
 * "AAA" - should be expanded as an acronym
 * Done
 * "2 orbiting" - as previous
 * "helo lifted" - expand abbreviation
 * Done
 * "USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19)" - the LCC number was given earlier, and I don't think it needs to be repeated
 * Done
 * "2,000 feet (610 m) " - ideally you would provide alternative metric figures for the other distances in the article as well
 * Done
 * "Air America committed 24 of its 28 available helicopters to support the evacuation and 31 pilots agreed to stay in Saigon to support the evacuation; this meant that each helicopter would have only one pilot" - I couldn't see why this was the case (24 helicopters and 31 pilots isn't one pilot per helicopter?)
 * Done
 * "contemporary reports and photos state" - minor, but I don't think a photo can state, only show
 * Done
 * "Air America Bell 205 serial number "N47004"" - I'd argue you don't need the serial number of the helicopter. If it's essential, then it should follow the same format as other serials in the article.
 * Relevant for The Photo section
 * "The first wave of 12 CH-53s from HMH-462 loaded with the LT 2/4's command groups" -CH-53 what? HMH-462 and LT2/4 didn't mean much to me.
 * HMH-462 and 2/4 defined under Task Force 76, BLT definition added. Not sure what you're asking about the CH-53s?
 * "The Embassy" - another section which starts almost entirely with date/times
 * as above
 * " begin to remove the tamarind tree and other trees and shrubbery" - is it necessary to pull out the tamarind tree as being particularly special? (If so, worth linking it)
 * yes the first pargraph states that Ambassador Martin had forbidden the removal of the tamarind tree. I didn't want to go into it in detail, but Martin linked the fall of the tree with America's prestige and commitment to South Vietnam
 * "some staff proceeded to take alcohol from the Embassy's stores" - "take", or "steal"?
 * thats a moral judgment, the alcohol was being abandoned
 * "At 03:27 President Gerald Ford ordered that no more than 19 additional lifts would be allowed to complete the evacuation." - I wasn't 100% clear I understood this.
 * there was confusion and disagreement as to how many more helicopters were required to complete the evacuation and how many would be allowed
 * I don't think the text has changed here - as written, it isn't clear what it means. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * " the elevators were locked by Seabees on the sixth floor" - some people wouldn't know that a Seabee is a person, rather than a lock or piece of equipment - might be worth clarifying slightly.
 * Seebees is xreffed
 * "and one of the stolen ICCS UH-1Hs, serial number 69-16715, were circling around the USS Blue Ridge. " - is the serial number essential to the story?
 * Done
 * "The stolen Air America Bell 204, serial number N1305X," - ditto.
 * Done
 * " the pilot of a VNAF Cessna O-1 Bird Dog" - "...Bird Dog plane"?
 * the Wikipage is Cessna O-1 Bird Dog
 * "Can you move these helicopter" - if in the singular, worth adding a "sic" in to make it clear.
 * its a direct quote of Maj Buang's broken English, sic-ing it will ruin the flow
 * That's what the use of a [sic] is for - to show the reader that it's an error from a direct quote, not a typo. The MOS supports this. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "For an operation of the size and complexity of Frequent Wind, casualties were relatively light." - as an explicit judgement, worth attributing it.
 * Dunham quote
 * My apologies - I meant, attributing in the text itself (e.g. "Historian Dunham considers that, for an operation...") Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Marine corporals McMahon and Judge killed at the DAO compound were the only KIAs of the operation" - the grammar of the second half, using KIA, doesn't seem quite right.
 * Done
 * "Lady Ace 09, CH-46 serial number 154803" - again, is the serial number essential?
 * Yes, its an historic aircraft

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * There's some odd formatting in places; compare " " with the other citation formatting.
 * Done
 * Fn 30 takes me to an Expedia page... :(
 * Yes the former billet is a hotel in Saigon, but ref has been removed
 * Fn 56 lacks an access date.
 * Not sure which FN you're referring to
 * It's fn 58 now - Leeker, Dr Joe F (2009). "Air America in South Vietnam III: The Collapse". University of Texas at Dallas. p. 19. Fns 101, 102, 108, 110, 111 also need them. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Some on-line citations lack publisher/author information (e.g. fn 104)
 * Done
 * Some ISBN numbers have hyphens, some don't - they should really be consistent
 * Done
 * "04/29/1982" and "10/14/1981" aren't in the same date format as the others
 * Done

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; (c) it contains no original research.
 * Appears to so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "In popular culture" section - this either needs resolving, as per the tagging, or removing as trivia. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This sections seems to be being held to a different standard to that of other pages. In most pages, the in popular culture section is simply a reference to where the topic appears in current popular culture, however some authors here take the view that the topic must be specifically referenced in texts which set out its cultural influence. I'm not sure where one finds such a text and so have adopted the more general approach that references to the topic in popular culture (like The Simpsons) is relevant and sufficient here
 * Any material on the wiki must be verifiable, and not original research, backed up by reliable secondary sources - whether in a popular culture section or not. The section still contains a range of primary source tags and is contested at the section level. Fn 112 doesn't mention OFW, by the way (at least by name) - given this is self-published, I'd challenge whether it is a reliable source; Fn 113 attributes the scene to the opera Miss Saigon, not OFW; I can't find the reference to OFW in fn 114. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Appears so at the moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
 * Appears neutral at first read through. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Broadly stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * "Map of the U.S. fleet deployment off Vung Tau for Operation Frequent Wind." - excess period at the end
 * "Aerial view of the US Embassy, Saigon, showing Chancery building (left), parking lot (center) and Consulate compound and French Embassy (top)." - ditto
 * "Evacuation of Vietnamese by Air America on 29 April 1975." - ditto
 * "VNAF Hueys and a CH-47 Chinook arrive at USS Midway", "VNAF pilot jumps from his Huey after dropping evacuees on USS Midway", "Major Buang taxies to a halt", "Midway deck crew surround Major Buang and his family" - for consistency, these need periods. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what standard to adopt is, have deleted all the periods
 * "The photo" - confusingly, the section has two photos under it rather than one.
 * The second photo shows a more recent view of the same location which may be of interest to readers, its pretty obvious which is The Photo