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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 22:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No disambiguation links (no action required)
• No duplicate links (no action required)
• Ref 1 appears to be broken. Can you mend the url or find a substitute?
  • Updated (they seem to have shortened the URLs) Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Images have appropriate captions and licences (no action required)
• Referencing appears to be in order, except for the broken link in the cite #1.

Prose:

• The lead speaks of "reluctance" to deploy helicopters (South Vietnam) and the body prose specifically says he "refused" to deploy them. After I read the lead, I thought he deployed them more or less right away despite some reservations or second thoughts. Now that I read the prose dealing with the same subject, it somehow seems to paint a different picture. It is quite possible that I just got a wrong impression, but I wonder if there could be a clarification at either end of this reluctance/refusal bit to avoid confusing readers.
  • "Refusal" seems the most appropriate term: he turned down a request to commit the helicopters from the head of the 1st Australian Task Force, and had to be talked into this by one of the pilots - I've fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Something appears to be missing in ...having 200 infantry killed if the unit defeated due to a lack of supplies. - "were defeated" or "suffered losses" instead of defeated?
  • Good point: tweaked. This now works a lot better. Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In Raw died on 15 July 1988 of lymphoma., shouldn't the time clause be either at the beginning of the sentence or at its end?
  • Good point - done. Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article overall. A very interesting reading, especially the bit about the incident causing the Army to request authority over the battlefield helos. There's very little to mend, the most significant item being the broken ref.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your through review. Sorry for the slow response - I've have a busy few days for various reasons. Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. All clear now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]