Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt/archive1


 * 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 00:51, 24 November 2010.

September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt

 * Nominator(s):  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Following the gulf of Tonkin incident, General Nguyen Khanh of South Vietnam decided to declare a state of emergency and give himself a lot of powers. This led to riots and protests, and he ended up on the back foot and weaker than before after being forced into making concessions. Then he had to sack a few supporters of slain President Ngo Dinh Diem from the junta to keep the protestors happy. As a result, some of the sacked generals, Lam Van Phat and Duong Van Duc launched a couop. They failed when the "Young Turks" of Nguyen Cao Ky and Nguyen Chanh Thi backed Khanh. After that, there was an amusing PR event where Duc appeared with some Young Turks to deny that any coup attempt had ever occurred and everyone was happy. However, a few days later, Khanh had them arrested, and tried them a month later, but then he deliberately acquitted them anyway to stop the Turks from getting too much power. Khanh also released a group of other generals he had overthrown in January so they could keep the Turks in check. Has passed a MILHIST A-review  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments 1c/2c:. 1c is good.  2c is good except fiddle .  I didn't see this at MILHIST ACR previously, this is the first time I've reviewed footnotes / citations on this.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ABC-CLIO is pretty good for academic TERTIARY sources, I'm fine with the source particularly as it is supported by Kahin, but did you consult an individual article within the encyclopedia?  (Tucker, Spencer C. (2000). Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social and Military History.)  The fact that you cite one page (325) kind of indicates this.  This would also allow you to cite the individual article author if there was one.
 * If we're going to New York City, New York, we may as well London, United Kingdom (Shaplen, Robert (1966)).
 * Not your fault, doesn't require correction here, but bloody irritating that cite core hasn't examined all necessary permutations: Yet again the quality of the cite core produces ugliness, compare Grose, Peter (1964-09-14).'s "The New York Times: p. 14." with "Coup collapses in Saigon"'s The New York Times. 1964-09-14. p. 1.
 * Actually there is a problem with "Coup collapses in Saigon" compare the display of the page number to the display in "Khanh arrests 5" or "Moscow Says Saigon" or "Dissident Said to Hold Out". I fixed it myself.
 * This arises from a difference in handling of the page parameter between cite news and cite web... I do kind of wish to take cite core out the back and shoot it.
 * I just decided to go for an extra karnow instead of tucker which has the same thing. I went to Greater London, the county/state/province equivalent. I originally thought London was just itself, but apparently not  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  01:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are as many rules about necessary containing locations as there are citation styles. Normally myself I go with US States, USSR constituent republics, Australian State comma Australia / Canadian Province comma Canada, and treat all other nations including UK and USSR successor states as Unitary.  Your citation style for locations is now consistent, the FAC requirement! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review concern for File:Tsn-1962.jpg : If this was obtained from the Agency directly, re-users are going to have a hard time inquiring them over the image if they have no forms of reference (ID or catalogue number); so I would say this is a non-compliance with WP:CITE. That said, since we are using Gradual Failure, there is an aerial photograph of Tan Son Nhut Air Base on page 80. All other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * removing Tsn-1962.jpg until better sourced  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  22:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Information has since been provided. Images okay.  Jappalang (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Images re-added  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! '') 04:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I looked this over earlier and think it's good.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - An excellent article, meeting all FA criteria in my opinion. Just a few tiny points: both UK and US spellings are used in the article (e.g. "favour", "demeanour" -v- "labor", "favorable", "armored", "defense"). Better to stick to one or the other. In the "Media conference" section you have "a airborne". The spell check thinks you should put an accent in attaché, and I agree with it. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2010 (UT
 * Thanks for pointing it out. I miss "favour" a lot these times  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  00:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Very well written, engaging and thorough. Just a few minor comments.
 * "Despite his survival, the coup was seen as the start of Khanh's ultimate political decline." Minor, but who is seeing this? If it was a contemporary view, then it does not make sense to say "ultimate" as they couldn't know that! If it is a modern view, should it be "is seen"? Is "seen" needed? I'm never sure on these ones.
 * "Khanh felt there was no choice but to accept since the influence of Tri Quang was so great that he not only turn the majority of the people against the government but could influence the effectiveness of the armed forces". Seems to be a typo: "so great that he not only turn".
 * "The Buddhists however, made no overt reaction to the pro-Diem coup, which would have dented their rights" Not sure about dented. And what would have affected their rights, the coup or their reaction?
 * "Ky consolidated the troops" Not sure what this means, unless it refers to Ky's actions in the following sentence.
 * "A stand-off of tanks and troops" A little clumsy. Between tanks and troops?
 * "There was then a lull in the power struggle." Again, a little vague. A lull in terms of rhetoric? Absence of fighting? Action?
 * "However, this was regarded..." By who? --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly a few too many howevers? --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed, I think  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  04:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Support: Well written, seems comprehensive and makes sense to a non-expert. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Support: Performed light copyedit but generally prose seems very good, as do structure, referencing, coverage, and supporting materials; another fine addition to this series of Vietnam articles. I do have a few fairly minor queries/comments: Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This deterred Khiem's group from enacting their plans. -- do you mean they were deterred from "acting on their plans", or from "making plans" at all; the current wording sounds like the latter but may not be the case.
 * Diem had tried to use the loyalist Phat to help thwart the November 1963 coup, but the rebels managed to thwart Diem's general and execute the president. -- can you think of another appropriate word to substitute for the second "thwart", maybe "overcome" or some such?
 * "so passive that they appear to have been either tacitly supporting or associated with his move by Duc and Phat". -- is the quote "his move" or "this move"; latter seems to make more sense in the context.
 * and American opposition to the coup was thought to have been efficiently conveyed to him" -- do we actually mean "effectively" conveyed to him, as in "in effect conveyed", or do we really mean "efficiently" as in "correctly" or "cleverly"?
 * Notably, Khanh and Taylor had an angry exchange... -- don't think "notably" is necessary, or desirable from a MOS perspective.
 * Done, I think  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 01:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All good, tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with comments. Looking very good, but just a few things:
 * I wondered while reading about the Dec 1964 coup as well, but are there no photos of Khanh?
 * Third para in Background: should the period be inside the quotation?
 * Likewise second-to-last para quotation, per WP:LQ
 * The numbered list in Media conference: does the sequence of items have some critical meaning? If not, they should be bullets. If you place the "to" at the end of the intro statement, it can be removed from each item.
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done the last three. Unfortunately, from my US govt pdfs and the like, I havne't seen a Khanh picture  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  07:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.