Talk:Vietnam/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 09:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to take the review. I will need some time though, as it is a long article. Will add comments as I go. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

While skimming over it, I noticed that the following sentences still need a reference, could you provide one?
 * Vietnam has two World Natural Heritage Sites, the Hạ Long Bay and Phong Nha-Kẻ Bàng National Park together with six biosphere reserves including Cần Giờ Mangrove Forest, Cát Tiên, Cát Bà, Kiên Giang, the Red River Delta and Western Nghệ An. ✅
 * Many ethnic minorities such as the Muong who are closely related to the Kinh dwell in the highlands which cover two-thirds of Vietnam's territory. ✅
 * Traditional headwear includes the standard conical nón lá and the "lampshade-like" nón quai thao. In tourism, a number of popular cultural tourist destinations include the former imperial capital of Hué, the World Heritage Sites of Phong Nha-Kẻ Bàng National Park, Hội An and Mỹ Sơn, coastal regions such as Nha Trang, the caves of Hạ Long Bay and the Marble Mountains. ✅
 * Traditional Vietnamese weddings remain widely popular and are often celebrated by expatriate Vietnamese in Western countries. ✅

Lead

 * the lead should summarize the whole of the article. Currently, it only summarizes geography and history.
 * as the nation expanded geographically and politically into Southeast Asia – why "into Southeast Asia"? Vietnam already is in Southeast Asia.
 * On 2 September 1945, President Hồ Chí Minh declared Vietnam's independence from France under the new name of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. – But the land remained under French occupation, which should be stated, otherwise its confusing.
 * In 1954, the Vietnamese declared victory in the battle of Điện Biên Phủ which took place between March and May 1954 and culminated in a major French defeat. – Somewhat repetitive (declared victory, culminated in defeat). Why not simply "In 1954, the French were defeated in the battle of Điện Biên Phủ", or similar?

Etymology
I am a bit at a loss here, I found it quite hard to follow, as context is often lacking. I would suggest to reduce complexity and explain all new words/terms in their context. Details:
 * a variation of Nam Việt (Chinese: 南越; pinyin: Nányuè; literally "Southern Việt") – Is Nam Việt from the Vietnamese language? (you didn't state that anywhere). If so, I'm not sure why Chinese and pinyin are needed here; its a bit confusing, as I was not sure if "Southern Việt" is the translation of the Chinese word. If the Chinese translation is not central for this article, maybe just remove to keep it as simple as possible.
 * You link "Nam Việt" to Nanyue, without explanation. So is it originally the name for that ancient kingdom?
 * a name that can be traced back to the Triệu dynasty of the 2nd century BC – this is a bit imprecise. Is it because the Triệu dynasty named their kingdom Nam Việt? If so, this could be stated.
 * If you mention the Triệu dynasty, you sould maybe also introduce the Nanyue kingdom?
 * later become Emperor Gia Long – suggest "the later Emperor Gia Long"
 * after seizing Annam's ruling power but the latter refused – Looking up "Annam", it seems to be a Geographic name and not a person?
 * In 1802, Nguyễn Phúc Ánh (later become Emperor Gia Long) established the Nguyễn dynasty, and in the second year, he asked the Jiaqing Emperor of the Qing dynasty to confer him the title 'King of Nam Viet/Nanyue' (南越 in Chinese) after seizing Annam's ruling power but the latter refused since the name was related to Zhao Tuo's Nanyue which includes the regions of Guangxi and Guangdong in southern China by which the Qing Emperor decide to call the area as "Viet Nam" instead. – Too long, too detailed, and too convoluted. If I understood correctly, he asked the Qing emperor for a title, but the Qing emperor gave a name to the area; the last part of the sentence thus does not fit the first part.
 * You could introduce the name "Annam" as well (an old word for Vietnam?), and also give a brief etymology here.
 * Between 1804 and 1813, the name Vietnam was used officially by Emperor Gia Long. – Remember that this is a very fundamental article, and that it will be read by many people without any understanding of Asian history. Here, I would repeat that Gia Long is not a Vietnamese Emperor, but a Chinese one. Even earlier, I would also make clear why the Qing dynasty is important and deserves mention (I guess because it was the leading power of eastern Asia, but I would mention this).


 * Hello Mr. Jens Lallensack. Thank you for taking your time to reviewing this. Please give me additional time to fix those issues since I just found out today this reviewing had started a week ago. Night Lantern (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, we have time. I see that in general the article still has some way to go before it meets Good Article criterion 1 ("well written"). I'm happy to work with you through that. We now have two options: We could continue the detailed review, working through the article section by section. Or we could fail the nomination for now, and I give general advice for the remaining sections, and you just resubmit when you are done. The second option would have the advantage that you can take as much time as you need, and that you can request a copy edit for prose and grammar before resubmitting. I am myself not a native speaker, so my language skills here are limited. But if you prefer to continue the nomination to keep you motivated, that's totally fine also! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply Mr. Jens Lallensack. For the advice in the remaining section, that will be really help me alot! Thanks! I agree we could fail it now before working it thoroughly since there is still many that need to be improved. Night Lantern (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

, all right. A take a more detailed look at those sections where I know a little bit about below:
 * The section "Vietnam war" is well written. However, the first of the three paragraphs is almost exclusively about numbers of deaths resulting from North Vietnamese land reforms. On the other hand, the war itself is barely discussed; the section is therefore very imbalanced. I would suggest to reduce the land reform death count discussion to one sentence and expand the war section, which leaves out a lot.
 * In recent years, a number of sign languages have developed in the major cities. – needs source.
 * The official national language of the country is Vietnamese (Tiếng Việt), a tonal Austroasiatic languages (Mon–Khmer) which is spoken by the majority of the population. – how many? Maybe give percentages for the languages?
 * In its early history, Vietnamese writing used Chinese characters before a different meaning set of Chinese characters known as Chữ nôm developed between the 7th–13th century. – What does "different meaning set" mean? Furthermore, this sentence remains unclear to me; is this purely a historic fact, or is it still used today (and if yes, to what extend?).
 * The folk epic Truyện Kiều ("The Tale of Kieu", originally known as Đoạn trường tân thanh) by Nguyễn Du was written in Chữ nôm – What has this to do with the languages now? How does it relate to the rest of the paragraph? What is the significance? Please explain.
 * Vietnam's minority groups speak a variety of languages, – how many languages are there (and how many endemic ones), are there numbers?
 * The "Prehistory" section is a bit poor, there is currently a lot of highly interesting archaeological work going on, and much more to say about those early cultures than just listing when what appeared first.
 * I suggest to make the "Administrative divisions" map and list expandable on click.

Closing comment: The quality of many sections is good, and the article has potential. Some sections however still require significant work and do not meet GA criterium 1 ("well written"). For the "Dynastic Vietnam" section, I would propose to reduce the amount of names, and provide more background. Just listing the dynastic successions does not give the reader a deeper understanding of the history. Try more to explain what was going on, help him to make connections, focus on the most important "turning points" of history. For other sections, I suggest to have a look at balance. Do all aspects of the subject get the focus they deserve? This may require shortening of excessive sections and expansion of others. When done, I suggest to re-read the text with as much distance as possible, checking if the flow of information is logical, information is connected to each other, and if the info can be understood without previous knowledge. Last, I propose to request a copy edit, and resubmit to GAN! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)