Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Sayasila

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jolly Ω Janner 03:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Operation Sayasila edit

(

)

... ~~that RLG casualties outnumbered the PAVN defenders in Operation Sayasila?~~
ALT1: ... that Royal Lao Government casualties outnumbered the People's Army of Vietnam defenders in Operation Sayasila?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/James Benjamin Parker

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 16:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

Earwig score = 0.0%

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral: - ?
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - ?

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Is the commentary in sentences such as this: "This Royalist success had an air of Pyrrhic victory about it, as the Royal Lao Armed Forces had suffered almost 1,000 casualties in the past two months." in the cited sources, or is it your own opinion? I'm not trying to be accusatory, but I want to make sure that this article meets NPOV standards.

The following paragraph needs citations in the locations that I have marked: "Given that the American plan for waging the Laotian Civil War was a defensive one, the American ambassador had run counter to policy by approving an offensive drive.-here This provoked a reaction from his superiors.-here The short notice request for additional USAF tactical air support had brought about a directive on 18 August that requests for tactical air support for a planned operation had to be submitted at least ten days in advance. In reality, the process would take 20 to 30 days.-here The directive, issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and agreed to by both the CIA and the State Department, required coordination of planned operations with both 7th Air Force and CINCPAC. These requirements were meant to limit offensives under the guise of coordination.[11]"

Lastly, I'm not sure about the hook. It's interesting enough in concept, but the acronymns made it look like gibberish to me. --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this may take me a while as I insert the "cites needed" that you indicated. Then I intend to re-research those in sequence. Last of all, I will either supply a new hook or withdraw the nomination.

I will open that you caught me with my hyperbole showing with calling that a Pyrrhic victory. Now, as a basis for the rewrite: "Compounding his [the commander's] problems were the increased complaints being aired by Vientiane politicians over the high number of casualties suffered in MR 4—almost 1,000 Lao killed and wounded since June." Re: Conboy, p. 306.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

My first added cite that you requested is supported by the following from the source: "Official U.S. policy was to hold a defensive position and limit American participation. Yet the embassy had approved two large offensives...." The next two cites are supported by: "On August 18 the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with CIA and State Department concurrence, issued a directive that any multibattalion operation requiring U.S. air support would need JCS approval at least ten days in advance." Next: "...the directive showed more of a desire to curb U.S. involvement than a concern for joint planning." Then later, "...the plan had to be coordinated with Seventh Air Force and CINCPAC...." Finally: "The time consumed in securing coordination, review, and approval meant that initial planning had to begin twenty to thirty days in advance of an operation."

You were entirely correct on the acronyms in the hook. I rewrote the hook.

I believe that should answer your concerns. Thank you for your attention to detail. It has helped me improve the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks a lot better now. I appreciate the work that you put into this (and I love your writing style - I'd love to see an article of yours in a venue that allows for more creative phrasing).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)