Template:Did you know nominations/Sigma II-65 war game

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 Fuebaey (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigma II-65 war game

(

)

... that the Sigma II-65 war game was held although four prior Sigma games foresaw that escalating the Vietnam War would lead to more U.S. casualties?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bathycrinus aldrichianus
Comment: There is probably no better example of an influential group of politically powerful men ignoring the blatantly obvious than Sigma II-65 than the Johnson administration blowing off this war simulation. At least four previous Sigma war games had warned that American intervention in Vietnam would be unsuccessful; after war's end, they could be seen as "eerily prophetic". (Quote courtesy of H. R. McMasters). Nevertheless, Lyndon Baines Johnson shunned the predictions of Sigma II-65 and pressed on in a losing cause. "He's knee deep in the Big Muddy, but the big fool says push on." (And thank you, Pete Seeger.)
(DISCLOSURE The lead to this article is being used in several allied articles. NONE of that lead should be counted for qualifying any article for DYK.)

Created/expanded by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 17:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

OK, just a couple of quick notes. The article is new enough and large enough, even if the lead is excluded. The hook is fine. Two minor remarks: 1) as a DYK article, it shouldn't be tagged as a stub, and 2) inline referencing should be fixed ("increased American casualties.[2]", "supervised election in the south.[7]" and the like). Will continue the review within a day or two, hopefully. GregorB (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I posted a stub template when I began the article; some categorist changed it to a stub according to them. I posted the template I should had on this article's Talk page from the start, and rated the article Start class.
I did not post those dead cites like that. I don't know what happened to cause that. It's going to be a pain in the posterior to recheck every single cite in that article, but I'll get it done and let you know when it is fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
A backtrack through edit history shows that some of my proper cites vanished between 0833 and 0836 19 November. The cyber-cops have been notified of the theft.
Enough cheap wit. The cites are fixed.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks fine now re those issues. Will continue the review later. GregorB (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
So: could not detect any problems with the article in terms of structure, neutrality and style/language. Inline referencing used throughout. The sources seem reliable. They are offline (books), so I couldn't check for close paraphrasing - AGF on that. The hook is supported by the text, which is in turn supported by an inline ref - again, AGF for offline content. (BTW, a very interesting topic: I don't think I've ever heard of these war games being discussed at all in relation to the Vietnam War.) I have just one more minor remark, but I'm leaving it for the talk page - the article is good to go. GregorB (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)