Talk:Battle of Long Tan

27,000 words is much too much

This article needs a major paring down. I am adding a {{toolong|date-May 2015}} tag. Please do not remove it.

I need to remind the editors that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an exhaustive, unabridged history book. Please refer to Wikipedia:Article size to review strategies on reducing this article to a manageable length. Please do your best to address this issue. And please let me know if you need assistance. Best, Kingturtle = (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that the detailed literature on this topic supports detailed coverage, one option would be to spin some aspects out into sub-articles (for instance, the assessment section) Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Copy editing the article (which is definitely necessary) will still leave the article much too big. We don't want to chop up parts and throw them away. Instead, finding ways to break it up into sub-articles would work best. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This criticism is of course a valid one, although some effort has been made to reduce it over time (its gone from approx 220 kb in Jul 2012 to 177 kb now). I've long had plans to continue its downsizing but perhaps due to my proximity to the project don't seem to have been successful. Anyway I will have another look at areas where some reduction can occur (for instance Nick's suggestion). You mention that a copy edit is req'd - is this something you are volunteering to do? I've probably spent hundreds of hours on this and have copy-edited it extensively; however, as a result my eyes don't pick up the mistakes anymore so I imagine it could do with someone else looking over it. That said unless you are familiar with the topic I'd request some care be taken before deleting content as I think most of it is relevant. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there will of course be difficulty reducing the narrative, too, given the many different interpretations of some of the events. Some hiving off, as Nick suggests, may be the best way to go, but I would be concerned by an approach that sees wholesale cutting without regard to maintaining the current cohesion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm guessing this is going to become an issue again (following the recent drive by tagging with no further discussion by IP 101), to (belatedly) summarize the progress since the issue was first raised over 5,000 bytes was reduced from the aftermath section of the article in May with these edits [1] making it approx. 173kb. According to the DYK tool it is now 23,601 words (so significantly less than the 27,000 words per the heading of this discussion). I agree it is still a lengthy article though of cse, although given the breadth of the writing on the matter it is difficult to summarize so many view points in less I'd argue. In this regard I acknowledge the previous (very helpful) suggestion above from Nick about a possible means of further reduction and have looked over this for hours over the last few months trying to work out how to retain the narrative whilst splitting the assessment section out into another article but have been unsuccessful. That said if someone else can suggest how this might be achieved I would be more than happy to work with them on a draft article in a sandbox. Regardless, the article is by no means the largest around (there are many articles well over 200 kb or more, indeed our longest is 784kb!). Anotherclown (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Good effort, AC. I agree that it brevity is hard in this situation given that so many works have been produced, and within those there are often differences of opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, per my post below to add to the literature available Harry Smith will soon also publish a book. Anotherclown (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

On the occasion of the release of the new film on the Battle, I want to re-raise this issue 5 years down the track: this article is much, much, much too long. I came to it today with an interest generated by that film, and feel like I will have to leave again without being able to satisfy that interest because it is impossible to get an overview of the subject from this article, even if and perhaps especially if you spend the necessary time - an hour? more? - reading the whole thing. In response to the claim that it is an inherently complicated subject: there is no subject that is not inherently complicated. The complexity of a subject grows with the level of attention paid to it. In other words, an encyclopedia is inherently inadequate to the complexity of a subject and contributors need to accept that limitation and trust that readers also understand that limitation. I beg those who are authorities on this subject to try to step back a little from the trees and see the wood for the sake of readers. It is hard to simplify a subject when you are acquainted with its complexity, but try to see this process as an art rather than a compromise and realise this article does your subject no favours if it turns readers away.Faff296 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

As a reference point, the Wiki article on the Battle of the Somme, which took place over 4 and a half months, is half the length of this article.Faff296 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@KingTurtle, Nick-D, Anotherclown, and AustralianRupert: I've got no comment on the length of the article itself, but I've tagged the lead section as far too long and detailed - it should provide a concise overview rather than a full synopsis of the battle (see for example Battle of Midway). I don't have time to reduce it myself right now, but as you all have done work on this in the past, could you take a look? Thanks, ansh666 12:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kingturtle: - re-pinging due to miscapitalized name. ansh666 12:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I'm not sure I agree with the parallel that you draw here. The Battle of Midway article is 8,900 words, with a lead of 366 words (about 4.1 percent), whereas this has a 1,050 word lead for a 22,500 word article (about 4.6 percent) so I'd argue they are basically the same ratios. Regardless, this has been discussed before (see Talk:Battle of Long Tan/Archive 2), and the consensus then was that the lead length was within reason. There is probably some room to prune a little further (maybe 100 words or so), but unless the scope of the article is to be changed (which would be very difficult IMO), overall I'd argue that the length of the lead is reasonable given the breadth of the topic etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not exactly the length of the lead section per se, but rather the content of the lead section, as per MOS:LEAD which for example states It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. - which it is absolutely not, it is as dense or perhaps even more dense as the rest. It is important to remember that the lead is a way to provide a brief summary of the important points, not a point-by-point regurgitation of the article. This is where the Midway article's lead should be used as an example: it doesn't get bogged down in an "at x hours y planes from z carrier attacked w ship in v location" point-by-point reconstruction of the battle, but instead focuses on the larger picture. Reading the lead section of this article, I have no idea of why this battle is even important enough to have a 22k word article compared to the 9k-word-long Midway, which more or less changed the course of an entire war. ansh666 01:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Gday Ansh666. I'm a bit vexed by this one to be honest. Whilst I agree that the lead was very detailed, this occurred for a variety of reasons, not least of which is because of the large amount that has been written about the topic and the many different interpretations / assessments of the battle. FWIW previous iterations of the lead were criticized by other editors for lacking detail, or being inaccurate due to being too general in their summary. The consequence was that the lead adopted was an attempt to write a measured and exact summary of a large article, and was as a result, itself long. That said IRT your comment about "accessibility" I can see your point, and I think your suggestion about restructuring it has considerable merit. Specifically, removing the "blow by blow" focus of the lead so that only the key points are presented to the reader. With this in mind I spent a few hours last night drafting something which is approx. 630 words (as opposed to 1050 words of the original). However, I'm now concerned that perhaps it omits too much so I'm going to have to think on this one a bit further. Anotherclown (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Per the above I've now rewritten a lead which is approx. 650 words - per this edit [2]. I remain a little uneasy with some of the compromises that were required in regards to coverage in the search for brevity so if others think it has been too brutal please let me know. AR - thank you for your initial efforts here, you gave me a number of ideas for my draft. What is your opinion of my changes? Specifically do you think it sufficiently covers the key events, or do you think I have left something out? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

G'day, AC, I made a minor tweak, but your rewrite looks fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks a lot better to me, thanks for all your work guys! Sorry I can't help, it's the week before spring break at my university which means a midterm and project for every class due in the next 4 days... ansh666 00:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Forthcoming book by Harry Smith - Long Tan: The Start of a Lifelong Battle - Big Sky Publishing, August 2015

FYI - there is a forthcoming book by Harry Smith, Long Tan: The Start of a Lifelong Battle, due out in August 2015 from Big Sky Publishing [3]. Given his (obviously) key role in the battle I would imagine this book will prove to be an important addition to the works that have already been written on this event. My intention is to acquire a copy with a view to incorporating material if req'd (I am of cse fully aware of the size issue with this article already though so I'd be planning of do so sparingly). Anotherclown (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it (without having seen the book yet) I imagine some of the material may be better off at Harry Smith (Australian soldier) anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Long Tan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.news.com.au/the-ghosts-of-long-tan/story-e6frfzg9-1111112148634

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Long Tan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.news.com.au/the-ghosts-of-long-tan/story-e6frfzg9-1111112148634

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This was already archived. I've marked it as failed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible changes from new book - The Viet Cong D445 Battalion: Their Story etc

User:Ernieacorn has posted a number of comments on possible changes or corrections based on his recently published book The Viet Cong D445 Battalion: Their Story. Although I reverted the comments which were made directly to the article, I appreciate the time taken to make them and I'm posting the diff here [4] for possible discussion. From my perspective the article as it currently stands is based on the bulk of the sources available up to recently, and while it seems that some aspects may be treated differently by the new source I'm reticent to make changes at this stage unless other sources / new scholarship emerges which supports a new interpretation. Anotherclown (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Split out of Assessment section

Per previous discussion on this talk page I have now split out the "Assessment" section by moving the bulk of the text to a new article called Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan - done with this edit [5]. I have done this IOT reduce the overall size of this article in the hope of making it more accessible, and because this aspect of the topic would seem to be able to sustain a separate article in its own right due to the large amount of material available (i.e. books, articles and journals etc - including from a number of participants). If interested editors are able to review what I have removed from this article IOT ensure I haven't thrown out anything important (i.e. information that is best kept here for the readers' understanding etc.) and that what remains is still intelligible that would be appreciated. Also I'd welcome someone having a look at the new article and making comments and / or additions etc. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

G'day, good idea. Overall, it looks good to me. I think you might need to attribute some of the quotes or opinions in text a little more, though. For instance, "Vietnamese account is available, while those that exist are contradictory or unreliable" --> according to "X", etc. Thanks for your ongoing efforts with this article. Must be a nightmare to maintain. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ack - thanks for having a look over it, I'll look to address these issues shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Gday AR - sorry it took a while but I have added some attribution now. Pls see my edits here [6]. Anotherclown (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

50th Anniversary

The 50th anniversary section, which I expanded with some details of the commemorative events in Australia, seems to rather gloss over the very sudden (afaik) decision by the Vietnamese to 'cancel' the official events there, IIRC there was to be at least an official wreath laying. Is this notable enough to be covered in more detail? I also wonder what events were 'Long Tan' related and what were 'only' Vietnam Veterans' Remembrance Day, or are they the same thing? As that link redirects to Battle of Long Tan, it appears so.

I do note that on the 18th:

"Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said that despite the ban, an official party including the Australian and New Zealand ambassadors would lay a wreath and small groups would have access to the site on the day" [7]

I'd like to know what if that actually did happen. 220 of ^Borg 10:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Gday 220 of Borg. Thanks for your work on this, what you've got so far looks good to me. I'm not really across what happened re the cancellation so can't comment on that specifically. Re whether it should be covered in detail I'd say if more information is available in the sources maybe a sentence at the most as I'd be concerned about WP:UNDUE. I certainly agree it is relevant but am concerned with WP:SIZE issues (this article is big, but has been much bigger in the past - previously 220 k). FWIW I believe Long Tan Day and Vietnam Veterans' Remembrance Day are not the same (although they are on the same day). Vietnam Veteran's Remembrance Day is for all who served in Vietnam from 1962 to 1973, whereas Long Tan Day is more specific. Whether the events this year were Long Tan-specific due to the 50th Anniversary I'm not sure though. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Anotherclown Ow ya goin? Orright? Perhaps there is enough material for a Battle of Long Tan 50th anniversary page. I just watched (only a little of unfortunately) an ABC Australian Story episode, What a Wonderful World

What A Wonderful World: Fifty years on, Patricia Amphlett (Little Pattie) returns to Vietnam where as a 17-year-old she was on stage performing for Australian troops when the Battle of Long Tan broke out.

* iview.abc.net.au, What a Wonderful World - EXCLUSIVE

It's (also?) about Little Pattie going there for the 50th, and how a concert they were to have was not permitted to go ghead. A dinner was allowed but no speeches. 220 of ^Borg 11:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That suggestion sounds good to me, as it seems that potentially there is enough to support a standalone article on the anniversary and given that the size of the parent article probably precludes its coverage here any detail etc. Anotherclown (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of units in the infobox

Per this edit a number of supporting units were added to the infobox by Rantaka. This was subsequently reverted with this edit by Anotherclown. Per the requirement to discuss reverted edits, I am opening this thread so that it can be discussed. Ratanka, I note that you have reverted Anotherclown's reversion. That is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy and I ask that you do not continue to do this. If you additions are reverted, you are required to discuss them before re-adding them (as are all of us). Please state your case for inclusion here so that consensus can be established. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

For mine there are several issues with this edit:

1. The list that Ratanka has inserted is incomplete and only includes some of the supporting units (for instance A and B Coy, 6 RAR are missing, as is the NZ and US arty btys, USAF Phantoms and US Army helicopters etc). What criteria is being used for inclusion? Its not clear to me if there is a reason these other c/s have been omitted.
2. Ratanka's list includes 8 Iroquois helicopters (presumably the two that dropped ammunition during the battle and the six which flew out the casualties at the end). This is unclear to say the least, but also potentially provides a casual reader that only skims the article with an incorrect impression, potentially being that they may have provided aerial fire support to D Coy, 6 RAR etc. (which they did not).
3. For much of the battle D Coy, 6 RAR was pretty much left to its own devices (except for the not insignificant support of the artillery) so I'm not entirely sure adding a bunch of other units to the infobox provides an accurate picture of the battle to our readers.
4. The current infobox only lists the key units for both sides (note only the main elements from the Viet Cong 5th Division are also listed, like the main AS unit, i.e. D Coy, 6 RAR). If we add a more complete list of the Australian units we will need to do so for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. Is this being proposed?
5. We already have a stand alone Order of battle for the Battle of Long Tan which lists all the units involved anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Potential source - The Battle of Long Tan: Australia's Four Hours of Hell in Vietnam (2016) by David Cameron

There is another new book covering the battle that's recently been published which might be useful as a potential source. I'm posting it here for possible future use / discussion:

• Cameron, David (2016). The Battle of Long Tan: Australia's Four Hours of Hell in Vietnam. Melbourne: Penguin Random House. ISBN 9780670078271. Anotherclown (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggested changes / notes moved from article to talk - 14 Jun 17

Link to suggested changes / notes inserted into the article on 14 June 17 by @Ernieacorn: is here. I've moved them from article space to the talkpage for discussion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ernie, thanks again for taking the time to look over this. I've gone over your suggestions now and made a small change to the lead as a result [8]; however, other than that I'm not really sure about the rest of them. Specifically:

1. Regarding the suggested citations for information in the lead ("introduction") these are generally not req'd by Wikipedia policy as it merely summarises the article (which is cited) - pls see WP:LEADCITE.
2. PAVN D605 Battalion being incorporated into the 275 VC Regiment in May 1966 is already mentioned in the article, pls see Note 2 which states "While McNeill states the 275th Regiment had been reinforced by at least one regular NVA battalion,[105] recent research suggests no such unit was present. The 275th Regiment was restructured in May 1966, incorporating the North Vietnamese D605 Battalion as its third battalion (which had been disbanded).[106]".
3. Re the action a Phuoc Hoa on 11 Nov 65 we have discussed this previously I recall here. Although then the issue was the location of the action, not so much its outcome. Unfortunately I cannot easily reconcile this discrepancy. You state that 275 Regiment was defeated at Phuoc Hoa; however, according to McNeill 1992 p. 222 "Viet Cong demonstrated their capacity to mount regimental-sized ambushes on 11 November 1965, when 275 Regiment ambushed and virtually destroyed the elite ARVN 52 Ranger Battalion near Binh Gia." Rowe Vietnam: The Australian Experience (1987) p. 64 also states: "On November 11, 1965, the 275th Regiment ambushed and virtually destroyed the 522nd Ranger Battalion, an elite ARVN unit." Davies & McKay Vietnam: The Complete Story of the Australian War (2012) doesn't seem to mention the incident at all (although on p. 190 mentions 274 Regiment attacking ARVN installations at Phuoc Hoa in November 1965). I couldn't find anything in Ham Vietnam: The Australian War (2007).
4. Re the figure of 500 killed and the Viet Cong commander's diaries possibly being misread. This theory does not appear in any of the mainstream sources available on the battle to date as far as I'm aware. Unless / until it is covered in such a source I'm not comfortable with changing what is currently written (which reflects McNeill). I note that although Davies & McKay (one of the more recent publications to cover the topic) does have a few pages on the number of causalities and discusses a number of the issues surrounding this figure no mention is made of the possibility of the commander's diary having been misread. At any rate this article only mentions the figure of 500 killed and the Viet Cong commander's diary in passing in a foot note (see Note 6), so it is not as if it is covered prominently, which I think is probably appropriate weight. Anotherclown (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding 275 Regiment's failed ambush at Phuoc Hoa/Kim Chi on 11 November 1965 (which the late Ian McNeill confused with Binh Gia), both the 5th VC Division History (2005, p.57-60) and the 275 VC Regiment History (2015, pp.30-34) acknowledge their defeat. They cite/blame their ambush site being revealed to the ARVN by a defector - the "Traitor S of the 11th Company". I have recently completed a chapter on "Route 15 engagements" for a forthcoming book edited by Bob O'Neill that included coverage of the failed 275 Regiment ambush of 11 Nov 65 - with photos of the "aftermath" including captured 275 Regiment weapons. Regarding, the vexed and confused issue of the two captured VC diaries and NVA/VC casualties at Long Tan - I understand your caution,but I believe that I have "unravelled" and explained this in The Viet Cong D445 Battalion - 2016 (the Index cites 30 footnotes on the "diaries" - succinctly at Annex F p.4. One of the problems was the jumbled and incomplete translation by CDEC of Nguyen Nam Hung's diary (2ic of 274 Regiment) recovered by 5RAR in late October 1966. Hung's diary states that "500 Australians were killed" at Long Tan - and that has been misinterpreted/ascribed to Nguyen Thoi Bung's diary (no copy available) stating that 500 VC were killed. On NVA/VC casualties at Long Tan, I believe it would be worthwhile citing my D445 2016 book - free-to-read at https://www.scribd.com/doc/306536690 . That work's comprehensive Annex F "Casualties and Losses" (26 pages) examines in detail the "Accuracy of Claims" and "NVA/VC Casualties - and references" with 108 footnotes. At p.F-11, the list of the 179 named VC casualties (with next-of-kin detail etc) provided by Hanoi in 2011 is examined, followed by an examination of headstones and records of the Cat Lo cemetery in Baria. These casualty issues are also addressed in the 2016 book's Annex O (ie 275 VC Regiment) Appendix 1 (275 VC Regiment KIA at Long Tan) and Appendix 2 (List of Martyrs 18.8.66). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernieacorn (talk • contribs) 00:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

G'day Ernie. Thanks again for the info re Phuoc Hoa/Kim Chi on 11 Nov 65. Given the issue identified with McNeill in regards to this incident (i.e. incorrect location at least and seemingly outcome) and the fact that I can't reconcile this issue with other sources I've now chosen to remove that part from the text and reworded it to try to retain the underlying point regarding the challenge the Viet Cong force provided to the ARVN in the province at this time. Pls see my change here [9] and let me know what you think. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent removal of content - 18 March 2018

@Mztourist: This series of edits [10] recently removed some content which I feel is material to the topic. As such I'd like to request this be discussed first please to see if some sort of consensus can be established. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As you will see from my edits, I did a full read through of this page, and deleted a couple of parts which I thought were repetitive and added nothing. Common abbreviations should be used so Viet Cong becomes VC etc. As already noted in earlier discussions above this page is already far too long, in fact it at 158KB (and most of the other pages about Australian battles in the Vietnam War) is vastly longer than the pages for every major battle and operation of the war. i.e. Battle of Ia Drang, Battle of Dak To, Con Thien, Battle of Khe Sanh, Battle of Hue, Operation Lam Son 719, Easter Offensive, 1975 Spring Offensive. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, one potential issue I see with the use of the "VC" abbreviation is the possible confusion with Victoria Cross, but as that is only mentioned once in the article (i.e. "Mark Donaldson VC" in the anniversary subsection) that might not be a significant issue if that mention was changed to "Victoria Cross-recipient Mark Donaldson" or something similar. On the broader issue of reduction, I agree that this is still desirable, although significant efforts have been made in this regard over several years. Nevertheless, I hasten to add that doing so in a coherent manner is a very difficult task due to level of coverage that exists on the topic here in Australia. There are many different interpretations of various aspects which are difficult to cover succinctly, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know VC is a commonly used abbreviation for Viet Cong and there would not be any confusion. In relation to reducing the size of the page and "the level of coverage" in Australia while I appreciate that some people may hold this page and its intricate details very close to heart it doesn't justify the length especially in comparison to the size of most other far more significant battles on Wikipedia. I half expect it to describe what each man ate for breakfast... The paras that I deleted were repetitive and added nothing and their deletion would make a good start to reducing the size of this overlong page. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mztourist. Thanks for taking the time to reply I appreciate it.

• Could I ask you to please be specific as to which parts of the paragraphs you would like to remove are repeated in the text and where? I'm not really seeing the issue but potentially there is the possibility to move some more text to one of the other articles which cover this topic (for instance Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan where I have previously moved vast swathes). At one stage this article was 220 kb but has been slowly reduced to its present 158 kb. Whilst it is of course large MILHIST has a number of A class and GA class articles that are considerably bigger.
• About the use of the abbreviation VC personally I'm not keen on the heavy use of abbreviations as I find them distracting and to be frank unprofessional. I accept this is just my personal opinion though and not backed by any wiki policy that I'm aware of. Ultimately it probably comes down to an editorial decision based on consensus through discussion (i.e. if several others think the change is necessary then so be it and vice versa).
• Regarding your change to introduce foreign language characters this article already used an internally consistent style (i.e. English language characters for all place names). WP:DIACRITIC does not mandate the use of these marks and I personally don't see any value in inconsistently using them for some place names and not others. At any rate their use presents accessibility issues for the vast majority of editors (myself included) who cannot generate them on their keyboards, don't understand Vietnamese, and don't have access to reliable sources for their spelling. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going on holiday and will respond in detail in a week or so. All VN spellings come from the spelling of the relevant places on their pages here on English Wikipedia, e.g. Biên Hòa regards Mztourist (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Happy to continue this discussion when you get back of course. The only things I'd add in the case of the Vietnamese spellings is 1) Wikipedia really can't be assumed to be reliable for these or any other purposes, and 2) what about instances of place names that don't have an article of their own? Hence where the inconsistency comes in with this approach. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about the diacritics myself, either. While I appreciate the effort, I'm not sure there is a need to change so long as the article is consistent in its approach and the names can be backed up by reliable sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Setting out the reasoning behind my changes:

• Abbreviations of forces: we use abbreviations for other forces e.g. United States to US (though I believe this should be U.S.), Royal Australian Regiment to RAR, so I see no reason why Viet Cong isn't abbreviated to VC or North Vietnamese forces aren't referred to as PAVN or NVA, though I believe the first is preferable
• Use of proper unit names: the US 1st Infantry Division should be referred to as that, not the "US 1st Division"; US 2/16th Infantry Battalion is incorrect, it is the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment and should be abbreviated to 2/16th Infantry; US 1/503rd Battalion should be 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment; US 2/35th Artillery Battalion should be 2nd Battalion, 35th Artillery Regiment; no explanation is given as to why 161st Battery shouldn't be referred to rather than just a "New Zealand... battery"; there was no such thing as "ARVN commando company", they would have been Rangers; US 1/26th Marine Battalion should be 1st Battalion, 26th Marine Regiment
• VN spelling: as noted above, the spelling comes from the relevant pages on English Wikipedia and most of the important Vietnamese places referred to on this page have a page of their own. In some cases wikilinks to VN places were reverted e.g. Châu Đức District to Chau Doc, Long Phước to Long Phuoc - how is that beneficial?
• Wikilinks: the wikilink to the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment should take you straight to their Vietnam section, i.e. 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment; L1A1 should take you straight to its Australian usage L1A1; I don't see why "RAAF Iroquois" is used when "UH-1" seems to be used elsewhere on the page
• Lessons Learned and subsequent operations: I believe that "Lessons learned" is a necessary addition to the section heading as the section discusses tactical changes in the aftermath of the battle. The sentences "Although D Company ultimately prevailed they would have been defeated were it not for the timely arrival of the cavalry and the availability of significant artillery support. The Australians had come close to disaster and the battle brought home the dangers of a dismounted platoon or company being overwhelmed, while several deficiencies had been evident in 1 ATF's preparation and response. As the fighting began there was no ready reaction force available at Nui Dat, resulting in a lengthy delay reinforcing D Company." are already abundantly clear from the preceding text, is there any need to repeat the point? if so can't it just be abbreviated to "The delays in reinforcing Company D made it clear that ready reaction forces needed to be available to support units that became engaged in combat."? Similarly the sentence "The magnitude of the fighting and its proximity to Nui Dat shocked the Australians, and later there was speculation Jackson had either suspected a Viet Cong regiment was nearby or that after being presented with SIGINT suggesting its presence he refused to accept it. Yet while several indicators of the coming action were evident after the fact, no one had forecasted it." repeat what is said earlier and is then discussed in more detail in the subsequent sentences.
• Long Tan Cross: I don't understand why "On 18 August 1969, 6 RAR erected the Long Tan Cross on the battlefield." was deleted. There's a whole section on the 50th Anniversary, so shouldn't it say something about the original cross?
• Decisive: I can't recall the Milhist discussion outcome on this issue, but was the battle really "decisive"?
• Shortening the page: I believe that vast amounts of the "Military Situation" and "Planning" sections should be cut out and moved into Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War or 1st Australian Task Force if not there already, or a new page should be created for Operation Hardihood.

regards Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• G'day, I think creating a page for Operation Hardihood would probably be the best solution here, although I hasten to clarify I don't have the sources to do so. Regarding "decisive", I believe the current consensus on MILHIST is to avoid this term, unless it is specifically used by reliable sources. The term is currently referenced in the Assessment section and I don't have the cited sources to check, unfortunately. @Anotherclown: can you check the cited sources mention "decisive" in this manner? Regardless, I'd be happy with removing "decisive" from the infobox if that is an issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and created Operation Hardihood by copying over content from the Military Situation, Terrain and Planning sections of this page. Accordingly I believe that all of these sections should be substantially slimmed down to 1-2 paragraphs stating something along the lines of "Following the establishment of Nui Dat base in Operation Hardihood, 1ATF proceeded to implement its counter-insurgency strategy throughout Phước Tuy Province..." regards Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• G'day, thanks for starting that article. Agreed that those sections in this article can be trimmed significantly, but I think we need to be careful not to be too severe. Do you mean 1-2 paragraphs total for the entire military situation, terrain and planning topic, or 1-2 paragraphs for each subtopic? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I believe a severe trim is exactly what is required. 1-2 paragraphs in whole to set the scene is all that's required. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure to be honest based on what I've seen at A-class and FAC, but I'd be keen to see what you are proposing. Are you able to draft a couple of paragraphs along the lines you propose here on the talk page? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Rather than discussing it further here, I have just gone and made my proposed changes on the page so that interested users can see what it looks like. Obviously I think shortening the page by almost 19,000 bytes is desirable and I don't believe that any useful information necessary for understanding the battle has been lost, but will of course respect consensus. If my changes are accepted there are a number of wikilinks which have been lost with my deletion and I will obviously go through and reinstate these, but haven't done so until we have a consensus on the trim. regards Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• G'day, I've adjusted the citations to keep them consistent throughout the article, but otherwise, it seems fine to me. It's not a topic I know much about and given AC has retired, I'll defer to your knowledge here. If you feel that is sufficient, no worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll get round to fixing the wikilinks shortly. Would appreciate your response on my reasoning above given that AC has retired. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• G'day, I'm not convinced of the need for diacritics; however, I won't oppose them, though, but would ask that if you add them, that the whole article be made consistent. Beyond that I can see the sense in most of what you are suggesting. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Rs Independent Australia vs potential BLP reason

The recent removal of material from Independent Australia concerns me as they have a doctorally qualified history editor ( https://independentaustralia.net/about/ and subpages ). My reading is that this makes the claim toward the lower end of HQRS. However, the claim may need someone with BLP experience to check over a single well—the main reason why I've not duplicated the claim here. Other editors may have useful opinions, and WEIGHT may Ben an issue, but given 11 Platoon's narrative importance I doubt WEIGHT would be a reason for removal. Comments? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The source is a political blog of very dubious journalistic standards. Material is often lifted from other more reliable sources and republished as if it were exclusive. Perhaps the original source could be found and used here? --Pete (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking further into the IA article, it is not a reliable source for BLP material. There seems to be some personal animosity extending into legal threats between the author and one of his targets.[11] --Pete (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

cheers. Agree on BLP. The source isn't reliable for that type of claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Disingenuous use of sources

I (Martin Walsh) am the researcher and producer of THE BATTLE OF LONG TAN documentary and the upcoming feature film DANGER CLOSE: The Battle of Long Tan. I am a former special forces soldier from 2 Commando Company, 1 Commando Regiment.

Since 2004, I have conducted 12 years of detailed and methodical research including interviewing more than 100 Australian, New Zealand and American participants of this battle and four former North Vietnamese Army, 275 Viet Cong Main Force Regiment and D445 Viet Cong Mobile Provincial Battalion soldiers in Vietnam. Not only have I had access to extraordinary primary sources of official and non-official documents, including classified and no longer classified material, I have also had access to private diaries of senior commanders such as Brigadier David Jackson.

Using many primary sources and first hand interviews I recreated the entire timeline of the battle, in minute detail.

Many years ago (2007 onwards) when there was very little on this page I tried to contribute some of the research and very quickly the page dissolved into agenda driven edits most times using either discredited sources or using sources disingenuously.

For example:

I have known Lt Colonel Harry Smith since 2004. Over the past few years, mostly due to senior age of some of the veterans, some of the veterans have on occasions either tried to introduce new, or exaggerated, some facts. I know based on my own thorough research what the foundational facts are and how they haven't changed since around 2012 or so. However, Harry Smith and others have been introduced to some unreliable sources and instead of properly vetting these sources, they re-transmit them word for word, e.g. captured enemy diaries or documents.

The only use of the word 'fabrications' or the like by Lt Colonel Harry Smith relate to the citations for the awards to Brigadier David Jackson and Lt Colonel Colin Townsend, both citations used to justify their awards are factually incorrect.

Terry Burstall has been discredited by both professional military historians and most participants of the battle. Terry was a private soldier in 12 Platoon, 6RAR and was in a section further most from the actual combat during the battle. No private soldier was allowed, let alone did, walk the battlefield to make his own assessment of the number of NVA/VC dead. Terry's claims of '...deliberate inflation of enemy dead by Army Spokesmen and others...' is just not true or based on any facts or even primary sources including himself. His own Platoon Commander Lt Dave Sabben said it is ridiculous that Burstall claims any enemy body count because other than patrolling into the Long Tan rubber plantation the next day and passing enemy dead, Burstall was in no position to wander the battlefield, make his own sweeping assessments of enemy dead and as a Private soldiers was certainly never connected to or in a position to gain access to official or non-official enemy body counts.

A Private soldier knows what is happening 10 metres in front of him and 10 metres either side of him, that is it. Burstall was not being given comprehensive updates of the battle during the battle or even afterwards, let alone a definitive count of NVA/VC dead which completely contradicted the official Australian Army body count. It was not until Lex McAulay's book, 'The Battle of Long Tan' published in the late 1980's that anyone had any really comprehensive understanding of this battle from both sides.

The only persons to have ever questioned the official NVA/VC body count have been the Communist Vietnamese Government and Terry Burstall.

The reference under 'Casualties and losses'; "D-Coy Commander: Less than 50 bodies counted[1]" is entirely wrong. Terry Burstall, a Private Soldier, not a 'D-Coy Commander' was the person in that referenced article who said, 'Looking back I don't really think that I would have seen more than 50 bodies and I spent three days in the area."

Controversial Sources

In every war/conflict there are exaggerations but there is also reality. Dictatorships and non-democratic ideologically driven governments have well known and well documented histories of spreading completely false, exaggerated or even understating the facts of specific engagements or incidents. Australia and New Zealand do not have any history of exaggerating enemy body counts either in Vietnam War or any contemporary conflicts. In fact, ANZAC troops went to extraordinary lengths to document and record the locations of all enemy dead and burial locations which in fact became a major story on Australian television because Australia was able to repatriate personal items and documents recovered from NVA/VC as they were buried. Further, the Communist Government spread propaganda that the NVA/VC units at the Battle of Long Tan had killed hundreds of Australians, destroyed a number of tanks and shot down aircraft. It was not until the Australian 60 Minutes story which I initiated and provided all the connections for, that two of the former D445 VC commanders finally admitted that Australia actually 'won the battle', but that 'we won the war'. So relying upon or presenting documents, official or non-official from the NVA/VC side must include qualifications about false, exaggerated and understated information in order to properly inform readers of this article.

There is also no reference whatsoever to the well known and well documented tactic of the NVA and VC going to extraordinary lengths to remove wounded, dead and their own weapons from the battlefield, both during and after an engagement, to deny the American/Australian alliance of intelligence and information as to the enemy strengths, dispositions and casualties as a result of an engagement. The high number of NVA/VC bodies left on the battlefield at Long Tan and the extraordinarily high number of NVA/VC weapons captured on the battlefield is further evidence of the size of the NVA/VC forces and the terrible casualties they sustained.

The text in the article, 'There are also additional issues with the fabrication of the size of the attacking NVA/VC forces and enemy dead by several authors and by the Red Dunes Film Group, which has received criticism from an Australian Vietnam War veteran and later historian and Vietnamese-language linguist Ernie Chamberlain' relates only to Ernie and my own differences in the total number of NVA/VC forces reported as participating in the battle. There has never been any definitive evidence of the actual numbers of NVA/VC forces in the battle of Long Tan and like myself, the AWM, the Army History Unit, Ernie himself, and others, as corroborated evidence has come to hand we adjust our own information and statements. As Ernie Chamberlain says himself, 'The seemingly macabre and petty “accounting” related above is perhaps not particularly relevant to the main story of that fierce Battle in August 1966. Others might wish to challenge the figures offered above, and are of course free to do so. However, I believe that we owe it to the soldiers who fell – on both sides, to relate all aspects of the story of the Battle of Long Tân as accurately as possible.' Unfortunately this Wikipedia entry has devolved into ideological and agenda driven editing. I am not necessarily 100% right on the numbers of NVA/VC forces who participated in the battle of Long Tan but neither is Ernie. I can only rely upon what the four former NVA/VC commanders and soldiers from the battle of Long Tan personally told me in Vietnam in 2006 and the information gained from official and non-official documents, intelligence sources and eye witness testimony - which I can corroborate.

Reddunefilms (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately any account on Wikipedia of PAVN/VC losses is tainted by association with US body count inflation, with little attention given to the laughable propaganda claims made by the PAVN/VC at the time and up to the present day. This page is far too long and detailed for a relatively minor action and it seems that multiple participants have written accounts of it all giving their own differing versions of events, so I'm not optimistic that any agreed position will ever be reached. I'm looking forward to seeing your film. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

GAN February 2020

GAN should be withdrawn as this page clearly fails 3b of the six good article criteria, i.e. it does not stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is completely focused on the battle, and never strays into other issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It is overlong and goes into too much detail in breach of Wikipedia:Summary style. Mztourist (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Given that the two AfDs you launched motivated by a view that this battle is covered in too much attention on Wikipedia were closed as keep, this is basically disruptive conduct. I'd suggest that you pick a different hobby horse. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Not disruptive conduct at all. I launched one AFD and another User launched another which I supported. This GAN appears to have been motivated by those AFDs, particularly in light of this exchange you had with the nom on 20 February: [12]. I have in the past worked to reduce the size of this page and it just keeps getting bloated up with more additions by Australian Users. Mztourist (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Of similar significance to Gallipoli?

I offer great respect to those who fought there, but I’m sorry, there’s just no way that Long Tan can be considered to be of similar significance to Gallipoli. And probably not Kokoda, either. The statement that it is sits towards the end of the overlong 1st para of the Assessment subsection to the Aftermath section. I know, the statement is cited, but it doesn’t make it right. They can’t be many people in the country who’ve not heard about Gallipoli, but most will be unaware of Long Tan. I’m going to remove it in a few days if there are no justifiable objections. Boscaswell talk 04:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Forget about your opinion. WP:Verifiability not truth. What do the sources say? Long Tan ranks in the annals of Australian military lore alongside Gallipoli and Kokoda. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Its not uncommon for a country to have one or two battles in a war that are regarded as the most iconic of the whole conflict. Rightly or wrongly Long Tan appears to have acheived that status for Australia's Vietnam War. Comparing iconic battles of one conflict with iconic battles of another conflict is specious. Totally subjective - an Australian friend's kid's recent school trip to Vietnam visited Long Tan, so I contest that its not well known and the military history shelves of Aussie bookshops bend under the weight of Long Tan books. If anything Kapyong, a far more militarily significant battle, is forgotten. Mztourist (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, remember the Alamo? Long Tan has attracted more attention than any other Australian battle in Vietnam, although it is not the biggest or most important Australian action. It is often taught in staff college, and the first volume of the Vietnam official history (ten volumes compared to two for Korea) is titled To Long Tan (a homage to the first of the World War II series, To Benghazi). The war in Vietnam has attracted a lot more attention from the Australian historians than Korea, and for that matter, more than World War II apart from Kokoda. Kapyong is the best known Australian battle in the Korean War, for what it is worth; the story is usually trotted out on Anzac Day along with Villers-Bretonneux, another battle fought on Anzac Day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Pre-GAN comments

I have noticed this has been on the list for a while, and I have looked at this in the past with a view to reviewing, but have paused for a number of reasons:

• its length, it is 8% over the readable prose size of 100KB, this is also a strong indication that it is too detailed for an article written in summary style. For example, there is an Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan article, but the Assessment section is four long paras. For a company-sized action occurring on one day, this is just too large and too detailed. Coral-Balmoral went on over three weeks and involved two full battalions, considerable armoured support and on-site guns, and it only runs to 72KB (it is probably a little too detailed in parts)
• while most of the citations are to academic quality history like the official history and Palazzo, there are quite a few to participant accounts not independent of the subject (per WP:PRIMARY), including Burstall, Buick, and Smith, and there are other less-than-academic books that are used a fair bit, like Ham. I think McAulay 1986 is ok for the nuts and bolts stuff, but getting a bit old given the additional work that has gone on since it was published, including the official history
• the use of anzacday.org.au education material as a source
• the use of Chamberlain's work which is mostly self-published (what editorial oversight or academic review has there been of what he has written?)

These issues would need to be addressed before I would review it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to note that Burstall does not seem at all reliable, given the information upthread in the talk page, for body counts. He doesn't seem to be an authoritative source on matters beyond his direct experience. Kges1901 (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I agree that the page is too long and it clearly fails 3b of the six good article criteria, i.e. it does not stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Mztourist (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

What parts of the article are unrelated to the subject? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I said, the article is clearly focussed on the battle, it just goes into too much detail and lacks summary style. Whole paras should be summarised into a sentence or two. The level of detail makes it far too long. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so the low hanging fruit has been dealt with by splitting off a section into a sub article. I don't see any other bits that deserve their own sub article, or off-topic material, so two of us have gone through removing verbage. The article has thereby been reduced to 98K. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Long Tan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk · contribs) 18:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to be reviewing the article. I can see that Hawkeye7 has nominated. Thanks :) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Intro

• I think that the introduction could be slimmed down slightly. I've replaced the below with slightly shorter versions. Feel free to revert if you don't think they suit:

Several subsequent controversies about the battle arose, including fabrication of official events and embellishment of the roles of some senior officers, disputes over casualties, size of the attacking forces, and official histories of the battle which cite purported documents and anecdotal claims which remain uncorroborated. Australian official records of 245 PAVN/VC casualties led to some dissension from soldiers due to accusations that body counts were being inflated for public-relations purposes.

With: The reporting of the battle contained significant discrepancies, with accusations that body counts were being inflated for public-relations purposes.

And: The PAVN 275th Regiment and VC D445 Battalion held different interpretations of the battle's outcome. The D445 Battalion regarded the battle as a victory, with the initial mortaring intended to draw out 6 RAR units into an ambush. Following the initial ambush and due to the D445 Battalion holding the ground until the next day, this was regarded as political victory as they had secured the areas around Long Tan village itself. The 275th Regiment regard the battle as an operational failure as they were unable to wipe out the entire company, but consider that they gained a political victory by forcing a retreat until the next morning and earning greater support from the people of Phuoc Tuy. Additionally, whether the battle impaired the 275th Regiment is disputed, as they had launched attacks against the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) 18th Division a week later. The impact of the battle on the combat capability of the D445 Battalion is also in dispute, as they were redeployed against the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment Task Force a month following the battle.

With: The battle's outcome was indecisive, with disagreement on the affect between the PAVN 275th Regiment and VC D445 Battalion. The D445 Battalion regarded the battle as a success, with the political victory of an effective ambush, and the securing of the areas around Long Tan village itself. However, while the 275th Regiment were unable to wipe out the entire company, they gained greater support of the locals around Phuoc Tuy by forcing a retreat. Whether the battle impaired the capabilities of both Battalions is under dispute.

• I've cut it back still further, eliminating the controversy paragraph. Also, an error had crept in" the 275th Regiment was a VC regiment, not a PAVN one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• I've had a bit more of a read about Ernest Chamberlain, who is cited a few times. From military records, he seems to be a first hand account, and I have no objection to the use of his material as a source.

Main Body

• From having read the main body text, it is quite dense. I suggest that this would be eased through the splitting of each of the sub-sections into further sections, allowing them to be more navigable.
• Maybe increase the size of the photos to make the passage easier to read?

• Y I have removed the hard-coded image sizes per MOS:UPRIGHT Readers can adjust their own image sizes. Hard-coded images cause problems for mobile devices. Made the maps larger with upright=1.3 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• The main assessment section is quite dense, and another page already exists for it. It might be best to summarise the information in a shorter paragraph and ensure that the info removed is on the separate assessment page.

Overall

• I've found this to be a thorough, well written and in depth article. If the above can be addressed, this should be GA or pretty close.

Continued

Hi Hawkeye7. I've trimmed a bit more, and added some sub-sections. One observation is that there aren't many interwiki links from the Battle section onwards. Given that much has been converted to abbreviation, it would be great if Wikilinks were attached to the main sections. With this, I'd be happy to begin (and pass) the formal GA review. Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I've done a pass through the article and removed all the duplicate links per MOS:OVERLINK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Review

Hi Hawkeye7. Review is attached. Enjoy the GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Neutral point of view

I noticed that the article is written entirely on a autralian/american perspective. Although most of our sources are from this side, and the only good communist is a dead one, I believe we should refrain from using terms like "enemy", "opposing force" and the likes to describe the loosing side of the battle. I replaced the few instances I noticed with neutral and descriptive term "communist". Feel free to improve and diversify on this. Francis1867 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)