Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1964 South Vietnamese coup


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1964 South Vietnamese coup

 * Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nominator(s):  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll ) 

Another of the South Vietnamese coup set, this one widely attributed to the prodding of General Paul Harkins. Duong Van Minh was toppled, apparently because of reluctance to expand the Vietnam War  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  09:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—A1 citation presentation:
 * References: Logevall, Fredrik (2006). Surely Roberts is editor, or is this a styling issue I'm unaware of as this is the second time I've encountered it in close succession on wiki, unattributed work producers read as "Authors" to me.
 * Short citations: "The Overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem, May-November, 1963". The Pentagon Papers. (Given the well known nature of the work, and the wiki-link, I don't think it is worth grovelling for a full-citation of which Pentagon Papers you found it in :) ) Langguth, pp. 168&ndsah;170. broken wiki-markup.  "Khanh releases 4 rival generals". The New York Times: p. 2. 1964-01-31.  out of style.  Grose, Peter (1964-05-31). page?
 * Yay, more minutae of the RVN! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, there is a special thing in this case which makes the template not put (ed.) unless explicitly forced. Done. Fixed Langguth and also p2 for Grose. As far as the inconsistent format goes, the format is that "Author (date/year) .... later stuff" but if there is no author then the date doesn't go first but after the titles etc. This is what the template has done. So I think everythign is fixed or explained. I sent four ARVN ACRs through while you were away this year. Maybe you should write too as you seem to know stuff about it  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  08:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I dislike the date ordering with no author element of the template's automatic style, but if it is consistently styled by template and that's template style :). The (ed.) thing is a PITA too, but in that case I understand it more (trans., author, annot. etc.).  My interest lies more in the DRVN than RVN, and in the RVN with the NFL/PRG, but, "I should really do that for my real job." Fifelfoo (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * no dab links, ext links work, alt text is present;
 * in the First moves section, "Colonel to General": these are being used as improper nouns, per Manual of Style (capital letters) they should be lower case;
 * in the Notes section, Citation # 15 is to Jones, but there is no Jones listed in the References;
 * in the References section "Nguyen Tien Hung" I think should be "Hung, Nguyen Tien", as you have listed the short citation in the Notes section as "Hung and Schecter". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm not sure about the last one. On Vietnamese ordered names, they are listed in default sort as just themselves generally "surname middle given" but always by their given name in short. Although technically it may seem inconsistent, and this has confused me :(  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No dramas, its only a minor thing. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good on a quick read-through. Images are a tad on the smaller side. Any source for File:Harkins.jpg? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, removing as the sourcing is rather vague by theuploader  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  07:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.