Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/December 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.
December 1964 South Vietnamese coup edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
Another coup in South Vietnam in the 1960s. The ruling military junta decided to compulsorily retire some older generals to politically sideline them, and the High National Council, a civilian advisory pseudo-legislature they created to look constitutional refused. Possibly because the HNC were mostly old men mocked as the High National Museum. In any case the junta dissolved the HNC and arrested the civilians, provoking US Ambassador Maxwell Taylor to angrily shout at the generals, leading to a public war of words. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This event/article followed and is related to
Comments: Generally looks quite good to me, but this is just a short review at the moment. (I will come back later when I get a chance for a more thorough review):there is one dab link per the Featured article tools that should be corrected: [1]- Fait Accompli is now showing as a dab link, but I don't think this can be fixed;
- ext links are fine and alt text is present;
at five paragraphs, I think the lead might be too long. I think four is the maximum per Wikipedia:LEAD#Length. Could you possibly consolidate a couple of them?;the titles in the References section should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles (Kahin and Karnow being the ones that need tweaking);in the Notes section is there a reason that you have used long citation style for Steinberg, but short for all the other refs?the ribbon template at the bottom of the article might look better if it were collapsed.AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I've done all these and think I obviated the last by fixing some code that was making the template bigger than normal with two mostly-empty and redundant lines. Also, as there were a lot of coups and infighting, I think keeping it open so everyone can click on the related topics, which are all very intertwined because of the infighting YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done all these and think I obviated the last by fixing some code that was making the template bigger than normal with two mostly-empty and redundant lines. Also, as there were a lot of coups and infighting, I think keeping it open so everyone can click on the related topics, which are all very intertwined because of the infighting YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Background section, the first sentence might sound a little more direct if it began with the date, for instance: "In October 1964, Nguyen Khanh and the senior officers...";in the Compulsory retirement section, in this clause you have " only 9 of the 17 members..." however, per Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Numbers as figures or words the 9 should probably be "nine";
- It says in there that numbers and words should not be mixed in a a sentence, which overrides the < 10 rule YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It says in there that numbers and words should not be mixed in a a sentence, which overrides the < 10 rule YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the Dissolution of the HNC section, the first sentence begins: "Before dawn, there were troop movements..." Before dawn on which day? I think it should be clarified;in the Brinks Hotel bombing section, in this clause the word "officers" is said twice close together, the second is probably not needed: "...US officers were billeted, killing two American officers and injuring...";in the Fall out section, the final sentence of the first paragraph probably should have a citation;in the Fall out section, this date I think should have a year after it: "...made was on January 6, when";in the References section, some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't. For consistency I think they should either all have hyphens, or all not have hyphens.AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done the rest I believe YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I'm concerned that the lead might still be a bit long. I understand that there was a series of coups during this period, but could that be better handled by linking out to those articles instead of having a big lead?
- "On September 26, 1964, Nguyen Khanh and the senior officers in his military junta decided to create a semblance of civilian rule by creating the High National Council (HNC), an appointed advisory body akin to a mock legislature." If it's a semblance of civilian rule, do you need to use the term mock here? And when you cite the source for American influence in the HNC creation, did they exert this influence through Taylor or someone else?
- "which Khanh and his men assured would be the case" This might read better as Khan and his men 'said' or 'stated' instead of assured.
- "Khanh's quartet of delegates responded to Taylor by responding in a circumlocutory way." This might read better as 'responded to Taylor by acting' instead of using respond twice.
- I saw similar things later in the article, but again it's mainly stylistic stuff. The piece appears to be well-researched, although a couple more sources certainly couldn't hurt.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all this, I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Highlighted concerns were addressed.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments
I am not terribly familiar with the details of the Vietnam War; I was quite young at the time.
- The article title and infobox header contradict each other; is it a coup (implying it succeeded) or a coup attempt (implying it failed)?
- High National Council is incorrectly linked (rather than red-link High National Council (South Vietnam), which is linked elsewhere)
- First paragraph of lead has three sentences in it; the second two are both somewhat long, with enough clauses that they should probably be split up.
- While this article is primarily about internal South Vietnamese politics, I'd expect the background to include a sentence or two on the general state of the war.
- Taylor image caption: he was either angry with the coup leaders, or upset about the coup; (insert image of Taylor saying "bad coup; naughty coup!")
- Westmoreland is never linked or identified beyond his last name and the rank of General. I understand he was somewhat important in this war...
- Link to Cable 243 in "Taylor meets Khanh" is a bit of an Easter Egg.
- Did this event have anything to do with Taylor's departure as ambassador? The fact that he did leave six months later (and possibly the reason for same) is probably worth mentioning.
- In the same vein, I didn't see anything on the eventual fate of Khanh, his junta, the Young Turks, or the effect of this event on the conduct of the war in general.
-- Magic♪piano 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did all of this, I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.