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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time EyeSerene^talk 13:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Canpark (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I want to improve its quality. It passed the GA Review a while back, and had been copy edited prior to that. Therefore, I'd like to see how this article would fair according to higher standards.Canpark (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a number of errors in the lede alone (extraneous commas, spelling errors, sentence structure issues). I also feel that the lede itself is too long and doesn't really feel POV neutral to me. I was also surprised to see Sheehan's "A Bright Shining Lie" missing from the source list, as this is one of the few biographies of John Paul Vann and has a large section dealing with Ap Bac. I'd say it needs some more work to hit the A-Class mark.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that the lack of Sheehan's work was mentioned on the article talk page. It's worth mentioning that there is a certain amount of bias in Sheehan's work (just as there is with Moyer's), but his discussion of Ap Bac is pretty good.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have access to Sheehan's work at this point in time.Canpark (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; the article appears to be very biased towards the Communist side, and on that point alone should be reassessed for GA. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide examples of this? It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just curious to see what you mean. Are you saying the article itself is POV, or the accounts of the battle and/or the sources used are too heavily Viet? I originally thought the latter, which is an uncommon problem (normally, given that this is the English Wikipedia, we find articles that are biased toward the English viewpoint based simply on the available sources). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for book sources.
• Please do not include "Inc." in publisher informations
• There are "volume" and "edition" parameters in ((cite book)), which could be useful for Halberstam (2008) and Truong (2010). Eisfbnore • talk 17:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed.Canpark (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Canpark, you have obviously put a lot of effort into this and I hope you are not discouraged. (In my experience maintaining a neutral POV when writing battle articles is difficult due to the way in which sources are written.) Unfortunately I don't have much time, so I apologise being able to do a full review for you. I have taken a broad look and have some comments. Please view these as thematic suggestions (i.e. pls look for similar issues and fix as you see fit). Unfortunately I will be out of contact for a month after tonight, so I won't be able to come back to this review (as such, to the closing co-ord pls do not consider this as an "oppose" or a "support"). As always, please feel free to ignore these comments if you so choose. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, I think that this is awkward: "The Battle of Ap Bac was a major battle fought in the early stages of the Vietnam War, also known in Vietnam as the American War". Specifically it leaves the reader wondering if it is the "Battle of Ap Bac" or the "Vietnam War" that is known in Vietnam was the "American War". I suggest reorganising the sentence as follows: "The Battle of Ap Bac was a major battle fought in the early stages of the Vietnam War (also known in Vietnam as the American War);
  • there are probably a few units and terms that could be wikilinked. I found one of the units (7th Inf Div), but please check if there are others that have existing articles. Also, you don't need to be afraid of red links for terms that you feel may be notable;
  • I think it would probably be best to replace the citation to Globalsecurity.org if you can. I think in the past its status as an "RS" has been questioned;
  • in the aftermath, please check this statement: "In blaming the South Vietnamese, Vann wanted to conceal the American's flawed intelligence and poor leadership. He hoped to pressure the South Vietnamese to accept future changes he favored". This currently being presented as fact, when to me it seems more likely that it is someone's opinion. As such, I think it would be best to attribute the source in text. For instance like this: "According to Moyar, in blaming the South Vietnamese..."
  • "the battle proved that they could defeat the supposedly superior South Vietnamese forces" - I suggest removing "supposedly superior" as it sounds a bit too informal and creates the impression of a POV;
  • this is slightly confusing to me: "He refused to acknowledge the flawed system under which..." Specifically, did he refuse to acknowledge that system itself, or that it was flawed?
  • I think this is a tense switch: "Harkin’s evaluation of the battle's success was based" and then "in which two armies fight a conventional" (suggest changing "fight" to "fought");
  • as per above, this is being presented as fact, but sounds like opinion: "Harkin’s optimistic and mis-directed doctrine negatively affected". As above, I suggest attributing the assessment to its author in text. Doing this helps to remove issues of potential POV bias;
  • I'm not sure if "mis-directed" is correct for US English. User:Dank might be able to help with this one;
  • "known as ‘Flying Bananas’ for their shape" - I think that US English prefers double quotation marks instead of single. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, AR. Also, "Harkin's" should read "Harkins'" when it appears, as that's the correct possessive.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Grandiose

I have a problem with quite a lot of the background section. This all uses a single reference work (Moyar). Whilst it's on the Cambridge Uni. Press, as a reader it really sounds like one man's view. If you take the paragraph beginning "However, South Vietnamese officers..." it reads like an opinion piece. I know from my own fields that it is entirely possible to have a well-respected author and yet feel like parts of it could do with toning down before publication to Wikipedia. I really must insist that a second author is added into this section if the article is to meet part of criteria A1 and A2 ('accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge' and 'presents views fairly and without bias'). It reads as a swinging criticism of the South Vietnam regime which surely must be supported better if it is going to stand at this level. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I have add a second author for the background section, but I will find some more sources for it.Canpark (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is why Sheehan's work has been mentioned. Moyar represents one interpretation, while authors like Sheehan represent another. Both need to be represented, as you've pointed out. I'd say this article needs a good re-write before it's ready for A-Class.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments about the lead section: - Dank (push to talk)

• "The stage for a major clash at Ap Bac was set": It generally doesn't work to insert words in the middle of an expression, because the reader will change their interpretation of "stage" when they reach "was set". Also ... it's not clear what "the stage was set" means here.
• "which situation south-east of Ap Tan Thoi": Something's wrong there. Also, it's "southeast" in AmEng, if you're trying for AmEng.
• "U.S. intelligence detected the presence of a radio transmitter along with a sizeable force of Viet Cong soldiers, reported to number around 120 in the hamlet of ...": Did they spot a sizeable force, or were they told about it?
• "three companies ... was committed": were
• "Than just before midday": Did you mean, "Then just before midday"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 7 September 2011 (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.