The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group[edit]

Nominator(s): Fifelfoo (talk)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Prior nomination: here (downgrade discussion).

Talk:Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam_-_Studies_and_Observations_Group/GA1 is the last review conducted of the article, a GA review.

Being from outside of the project, I came across this article as a B; fixed the GA review elements, then decided to put it forward. The standard of this article is high, citations are to the point and support the narrative, the narrative is sufficient as a description of the organisational function of the group. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since you are not the primary contributor, RM Gillespie (talk · contribs) has 299 edits to the article as I write this, did you even attempt to ask him if you believe the article meets the criteria and be nominated here? If this were at FAC this would be speedily closed because of this fact. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See that editor's wiki-fatigue at: Talk:Battle_of_Khe_Sanh#Time_to_try_FA_again.3F Fifelfoo (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've printed out RMG's 15 As and this delisted one and am reading some books and working through and scribbling down refs to book pages, but some of the unsourced bits that people complained about before are still there. Also some of the refs only cover part of the preceding information, or just list a book without any specific page or chapter, and I'm still in the process of chasing it down. I haven't started reading about SOG or the bombing campaigns/logistics trails, mostly the less technical ones: Tet, Easter, 1975, Cambodian Civil war etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also notethe previous GAC was an arbitrary driveby YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Good effort, however, unfortunately I do not believe that this article at the moment meets A class standards. The main area it falls down in is citation. These are my comments:

- External links are okay according to the link checker;
- Images are missing alt text and need it per WP:ALT;
- There are a couple of dab links that need fixing (Green Beret and KIA);
- The following needs citations:
  - Last paragraph in Foundation section;
  - 2nd, 5th and 7th (last) paragraph in Gulf of Tonkin section;
  - Last paragraph in Shining Brass section (there is a citation at the start, but a large number of sentences after wards that give the impression they are uncited);
  - 5th, 6th and 8th paragraphs in Daniel Boone section;
  - 1st paragraph in Commando Hunt section
  - There is a citation needed tag that needs dealing with in the Third Indochina seciton.
  - 1st and last paragraphs in Withdrawal section need citations;
  - The MOH recipients list in the Recognition section needs citations, as does the last paragraph of that section.
- There are a large number of hatnotes in the Withdrawal section which I feel impact on the article's style, is it possible to work these links into the text?

I am unable to discuss content as it is not a field of which I have any knowledge. If these issues can be addressed and someone with more knowledge of content is prepared to voucher for the article, I could be convinced to change my vote. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While it mostly reads OK, it could use a copyedit for some jargon, especially in the last couple sections. Also, the sourcing must drastically be improved before it will meet the requirements. – Joe N 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this old warhorse is up for A-class again? Already had the pleasure (fleeting on wiki) of getting it an A-class. Then along came a bot that deleted the illus. that were clearly sourced as US govt. docs - reducing it to a B). I'm pretty much through with wiki and tired of constantly re-editing or revising what should make common sense to an informed reader (eg the "uncited text" in the 3rd Indochina War section). Leave the poor thing alone and leave it for readers who have a working knowledge of the material (they being the only ones that will bother reading it in the first place).RM Gillespie (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.