Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hue chemical attacks/archive2


 * 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 by SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009.

Hue chemical attacks

 * Nominator(s):  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article about incident on protestors being attacked in 1963.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
 * Fixed. – Juliancolton  | Talk 19:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Images, sources, and tech review completed in previous FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments&mdash;Overall it seemed decent, although the primary focus of the article seemed to be about the protests rather than the chemical exposure, per se. I have a couple of observations:
 * The article contained no information about the nature of the injuries to the 67 Buddhists. For example, were ths injuries caused by inhalation of the fumes or burns to the skin? The article could also use a brief table listing the candidate chemicals and their known effects upon skin exposure.
 * It was already in the main body but I have added the symptoms to the lead. I am a bit hesitant to give a table for the candidate chemicals because that part is already skirting the edges of deduction/OR.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 02:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several rather long paragraphs in the article that could benefit from a split.
 * Split some  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 02:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * "Catholics were also de facto exempt from the corvée labor that the government obliged all citizens to perform and the government appropriated funding disproportionately to Catholic majority villages." should be "allocated funding..."?
 * "...and pelting them with tear gas grenades." Can we find an alternative to 'pelting'? Sounds POV.
 * "Government sound trucks rang out above the scene, urging the Buddhists—primarily high school and university students who had arrived on bicycles—to disperse." -> government sound trucks? What is the significance of bicycles?
 * A dictionary tells me a truck with a loudspeaker. Used a description instead. No indication of bicycle importance but it isn't hurting anyone I hope  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 00:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "...at outdoor and room temperature.[32]" Maybe just room temperature? That's how engineers refer to 20 degrees C.
 * "...Ngo family ordered the special forces to attack Buddhist pagodas across the country" -> "...ordered special forces..."?
 * After reading the article I'm not terribly clear on what happened. Did the troops open the grenades, find they didn't work and pour the contents on the monks? Did they fire the grenades at the monks and the (failed) detonation covered the monks in chemicals? Dhatfield (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed these.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 00:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An excellent first sentence.
 * "An inquiry determined that the chemical used in the attack was a liquid component from old French tear gas grenades that failed to vapourise." -> "...WWI era French tear gas grenades..." The sentence does not convey sufficiently just how old these grenades were. Minor preference: I think indicating that they were designed to vapourise, but failed to do so is appropriate: "...failed to vapourise." is perhaps too concise - "...failed to vapourise as designed.", "...as they should have done."?
 * "The incident prompted the United States to privately threaten to withdraw support for Diem's government." The significance of this threat in the historical context is somewhat lost in the article - similarly in Reaction and aftermath.
 * Reaction and aftermath is a confusing section. It contains Political repurcussions (perhaps a section on its own), details of the chemistry involved (interesting and relevant, but hardly Reaction and aftermath). Last two sentences of paragraph 3 don't fit with the rest of the paragraph.
 * In Incident "...and the incident became a public relations disaster for Diem. Rumours circulated that three people had died..." is really "Political repercussions" as well.
 * Led to assassination of the president and his replacement with...? I get the feeling that Aftermath is perhaps not far reaching enough: the Vietnam War was soon to follow. Dhatfield (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * done all of these.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nicely done - voting to support promotion to Featured. One or two more minor comments: "This led a deterioration in the military situation..." -> "led to..." and "...support for Diem's government; when the Americans finally reduced..." -> "...support for Diem's government and when the Americans finally reduced..."


 * Comment One of the references, (Tucker, Spencer C. (2000). Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War) seems to have a dodgy ISBN. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for spotting my typographical error  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, since as far as I can tell, the bulk of the problems have been addressed. If there are any remaining issues, they should be brought up here. On a side note, shouldn't the page be moved to Huế chemical attacks to conform with the the main article? Khoikhoi 00:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I found a tiny mistake: reference 7 should have a "2" added before the "82" for consistency with the rest of the article. The reference should read Gettleman, pp. 280–282. Nothing can get past me! Mm40 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.