Talk:Operation Frequent Wind/GA3

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

Reviewer: Smallchief (talk · contribs) 19:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article should mention that Operation Frequent Wind was only part of the evacuation. Frequent Wind evacuated 57,000 people.  But the total number of Vietnamese who fled during those few days while the North Vietnamese finished their conquest of the country, totalled 130,000. Most of those not evacuated by Frequent Wind sailed out to sea and were picked up by US naval vessels offshore.  The evacuees were taken to Guam for processing and onward flight to the United States. Smallchief (talk  19:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest in undertaking a GA review. Operation Frequent Wind was a US military operation and that is all the article is trying to cover. OFW was part of the Fall of Saigon and so I think the details of other Vietnamese refugees who left South Vietnam during and immediately after the Fall of Saigon are more appropriately covered there. Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think that Frequent Wind should be put in context to avoid having a reader believe it was the only evacuation going on in Saigon. The majority of the Vietnamese evacuees were not connected to Frequent Wind and this should briefly be mentioned. It only requires about three sentences to do so.  If this article is strictly concerned with the military operation "Frequent Wind," then why are we telling the famous story of the Vietnamese pilot who landed a small plane on a carrier?  That wasn't part of Frequent Wind. Much as I believe in the maxim "good deeds never go unpunished" I suppose I could fix up this bit of the article if you wish.  Smallchief (talk  13:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that OFW is at all out of context to the Fall of Saigon and the collapse and escape of the RVNAF to the 7th Fleet was undoubtedly part of OFW. I have added some deatils of Military Sealift Command and the sea evacuation of Saigon Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That meets my concerns. Thanks.  Smallchief (talk  17:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything further that needs to be done here? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 08:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did additional edits in the summary paras to give more prominence to the fact that self-evacuation by Vietnamese was also going on in those final days -- and in fact more people self-evacuated than were evacuated in the official Frequent Wind evacuation. The summary and article also lacked any mention of what happened to the Vietnamese evacuated -- which would seem to be a question in the mind of the reader.  I summed that up by saying they were processed as refugees by the U.S.


 * In rereading the article I also found a small inconsistency. The summary paras say the helicopter evacaution from DAO was accomplished with only "limited small arms damage" to the helicopters.  The DAO evacuation section says the helicopter evacuation was carried out without "any apparent damage" to the helicopters.  Which is correct?
 * I'd say "both". In context, I can understand how one would describe scrapes/dents/small perfs as "no apparent damage", as well as calling it "limited small arms damage" in a more rigorous/formal context. I wouldn't change one or the other if they are both direct quotes, but maybe drop the "any apparent damage" sentence altogether if you feel it necessary. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 19:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. The article should also have a link to the main article Fall of Saigon -- or, if the link is already there, it is not prominent enough.  Smallchief (talk  11:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I see there is a link.  But maybe it should be placed in a more prominent position?  Smallchief (talk  12:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How's this? I could have also just replaced "takeover of the city by the North Vietnamese Army (PAVN)" with Fall of Saigon, which is a little smoother, but less informative.
 * As far as the other stuff, like Mztourist, I don't think the article implies that it was the only evacuation or even the most important – it was just another mission, like many others that have their own article. I don't think it's necessary to add too much detail about where they fit in the grand scheme of things – that's for the main war/campaign articles to do. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 19:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I felt the article as previously written left 2 unanswered questions.  "What happened to all those Vietnamese who were evacuated?"  The answer to that was not easy to find on Wikipedia.  I searched.  My other question was, "I thought 130,000 Vietnamese were evacuated from Saigon -- not 50-some thousand as this article says?"  Likewise, the answer to that question was not easy to find on Wikipedia.  So I thought both questions needed clarifying in this article. I'm satisfied. Thanks for your consideration and patience. Smallchief (talk  19:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good working with you. Will you be passing the article now, per ? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 05:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The review appears complete from the reviewer's comments, so I'll close and pass this. Wizardman 23:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)