Talk:Battle of Long Khánh/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am preparing to review this article. The topic promises to be interesting and I look forward to reading the article. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Review

All right, here is my review, according to the Good article criteria:

1. Well written:

a) prose/grammar: article mostly looks good, although I did make a few copy edits for word choice and to fix a couple of typos. One other thing that you might want to consider is your comma use. On a few sentences I noticed that, to my eye, an extra comma would have improved the flow of the sentence by breaking it up a little bit. However, one person's smooth is another person's choppy, so that's a stylistic choice that I'll leave up to you. A couple of examples to show you what I'm talking about:

"During the final assault C Company, located to the south, had uncovered a second bunker system which was subsequently captured by the Australians after being hastily abandoned."

I would change to "During the final assault, C Company, located to the south, had uncovered a second bunker system which was subsequently captured by the Australians after being hastily abandoned." (This sentence already has a few commas in it, so we need to be careful not to break it up too much.)

"The Australian area of operations remained the same however, with the reduction in forces only adding further to the burden on the remaining battalions."

I would change to: "The Australian area of operations remained the same, however, with the reduction in forces only adding further to the burden on the remaining battalions.

Other than that, though, the prose is grammatically correct as far as I can see and it gets the job done. Very readable.

b) layout: Very good, the lead in particular did a good job of communicating the highlights of the battle while staying pretty short. For layout, the guide to follow is WP:MILMOS, which you followed to a T.

2. Factually accurate and reliable.

a) Refs: Yup.

b) Inline citations: Looks good, although you may want to cite the casualties and losses in the infobox. On some Korean War articles I've edited, that has cause controversy. Was there an allied estimate of Viet Cong casualties? Probably just wishful thinking in any case, but you may want to stick it in there. If you do, clearly label it is an estimate. I can't check out the accuracy of the print sources, but they look pretty solid, as does your online source.

c) NOR: As far as I can tell, the article was clean. I was concerned with footnote about the AO codenames at first, but then I noticed that it was a direct quote, so no worries.

3. Broad in its coverage.

a) Addresses main aspects of topic: I believe so.

b) No unnecessary detail: Yes.

4. Neutral: Ideally, you would have some info on this battle from the VC perspective, but I understand that that's not really possible. We have the same problem with Korean War stuff.

5. Stable: Edit history is clean. Anotherclown is the primary contributor, not reverts or anything.

6. Images

a) Non-free use rationale/copyright: It's there.

b) relevant images, captions: Yes.

It would be nice to have another image or two, but I understand if there are no other relevant images available.

Conclusion

A definited Pass. Congratulations! As for tips for further improvement, I don't really have any; other than more images if available, it seems like you got all the bases covered. Again, congratulations! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I almost forgot: please reciprocate this review by going and reviewing an article at WP:GAN if you have not already done so (heck, even if you have!). Thanks. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cerbellum. Thanks for a comprehensive review. Regarding your points: I will have a look at the comma issue, cheers. Can't find too many images I'm afraid but will have a hunt for some more before I take the article higher. Unfortunately I cannot find an estimate of communist losses other than that they were 'heavy'. The last volume of the Australian official history of the war is expected to be published this year after many years of delay and maybe when it does I can expand on that a bit further. Lastly, re the VC perspective you're right of course, but as you say it is difficult to find sources. I have the PAVN official history of the conflict and used that for Operation Coburg but there isn't anything on Long Khanh. This is doubtless because in many ways it was a fairly small incident from their perspective. Will see what I can do re a GAN review or two, but I mainly do A Class reviews. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)