Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 19 April 2008.

1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing
An assassination attempt on President Ngo Dinh Diem by two Vietnam Air Force pilots. Relatively short, since the plot involved only two people and was relatively straightforward: Instead of flying out to attack the Vietcong, they diverted towards Saigon and dropped a few bombs. I have included all information discussed by the books listed at the bottom.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment all the links worked and the sources look good. I like the readability tool link too! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose —''But can you remove the dot from the first two captions? See MOS.'' This is not well-written. Here are morsels from the top that suggest there are big problems throughout.
 * (Points removed. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)}


 * "The attack failed to kill Diem and his family, with only his sister-in-law Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu sustaining minor injuries."—What, the other members suffered serious injuries or none at all?
 * "Cu fled to Cambodia, while Quoc was imprisoned"—Rather than imply that these two events necessarily happened simultaneously, why not just "and"?
 * Grammar: "and responded with tightening media freedom and rules of political association" (a tightening of?)
 * "The bombing fueled media speculation that the United States would exploit the incident to place combat troops in South Vietnam and was reported to have prompted plotting against Diem on the part of his officers." Comma after "Vietnam"? "Prompted plotting" not an attractive duo. "By his officers"? Clumsy TONY   (talk)  13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have copyedited the lead. As fate would have it, I copyedited from bottom up on the day of the nom, and the lead was the only part not copyedited. So hopefully the lower part is actually ok. But I will sweep again.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 09:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"At that time, US military personnel were theoretically present only in an advisory capacity. With the media questioning the ability of Diem to provide a stable government, US Secretary of State Dean Rusk denied that the US had plans to deploy combat forces. He also ruled out negotiations with the Vietcong, saying that 'the root of the trouble' were communist violations of the Geneva Accords.[6] US official John Kenneth Galbraith lobbied Kennedy against deploying sending combat troops, believing that it would lead to endless South Vietnamese requests for further soldiers. Galbraith further believed that the Soviet Union would be happy if the United States wasted more of its resources in the jungles of Vietnam."
 * Rejoinder—I took another segment as a sample:


 * "Theoretically" means what? Better to use a less ambiguous word.
 * Replaced with "officially" - some of them battled it out anyway.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket '') 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not good at all. New collaborator needed. TONY  (talk)  14:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "With" is a bad connector. "In the face of media concerns about the stability of the Diem government ...", perhaps?
 * Done. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Were" is ungrammatical.
 * Which "were"? The first seems fine since personnel can be used as a plural. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Deploying sending? "Against the deployment of c t"
 * Fixed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably remove "that".
 * Done. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "further ... further". more troops ... further.
 * Done. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After US US US, why spell it out suddenly?
 * Changed to US. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go through the article. Hopefully, I can catch some of the prose issues. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure if "Presidential Palace" is a widely-used term for the building in English. In Vietnamese it had been "Independence Palace" since Diem's occupation until 1975. It's still known as such on its official website (probably for touristic reasons). DHN (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would be right to move it to the Independence Palace, which I have done. I was simply using PP as a generic term and forgot about the official name.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments.
 * "on 27 February 1962" - no need to say the year again
 * I know it's obvious from the title, but every article with the year in it also has the full date in the lead. Of course this is not in the main body.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket '') 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The attack prompted Diem to become more hostile towards the American presence in South Vietnam" --> "The attack made Diem more hostile towards the American presence in South Vietnam", perhaps
 * Fixed.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket '') 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Image in Attack section could do with a better caption...
 * Done.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket '') 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Quoc and Cu – flying American-built" - would em dashes be better here (and next sentence)?
 * Yes. I think.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket '') 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "and guards were killed; about thirty others were injured" - change semicolon to comma and put an "and" before "about", I think
 * Reworded.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket '') 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "did not drop the full payload" - a bit uneasy on the jargon...also, do you know why they didn't?
 * No we don't. which is why it's weird. Changed to munitions I think.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket '') 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the purpose of the image in the Diem reaction section?
 * To show us the mug of the person the section is about..... Blnguyen  ( bananabucket '') 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, should the section title be "Diem's reaction"?
 * If it was in the man prose, yes, but I think these newspaper type headlines are ok in headings....I think.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket '') 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I would disagree with that on a grammarish basis. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Diem regime's" - rmv "the"
 * Tweaked. Simpy removing it wouldn't have worked.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket '') 07:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Those copyedits have helped. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. (Still one minor thing up there to consider...) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I came to this article as a result of copy-editing request. It's been worked on by several editors during FAC and is crisply written, well-sourced and informative. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I too was asked to copyedit the article. I have made some changes, and I think the article now meets the FA criteria. I just have one request: the Nolting quote in "Aftermath" says the bombing was an "anti-Communist assassination attempt". This gives the impression that the attack against Communists, but it was in fact an attack against an "anti-Communist". You should probably refactor the quote to clarify this. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.