This article is currently listed as a B class article with 'Top' importance. I feel it has a number of issues but would like to try to get a group of interested editors involved to try to bring it up to a GA. Any comments and or involvement would be appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few points:

• I don't think the use of an infobox, particularly the Military Conflict variant, is entirely appropriate for this article. Infoboxes don't really work well in a case such as this, where it is basically just presenting information for one side and is not structured for such use.
• The lead could do with an expansion, briefly summarising the contents of the article. Done — I think I've improved it now, but it could do with a fresh opinion
• Dates should be delinked in the prose and citations. Done
• Per MoS, emdashes should not be spaced. Done
• There is a little inconsistency in the article regarding the rank Warrant Officer Class II, with it being written as both Warrant Officer Class 2 and Warrant Officer Class Two. Please choose one of the variants and use that throughout. Done
• "See also" sections should only contain links that are extremely relevant to the article, but are also not linked to in the prose. Done

I hope the above are helpful. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've fixed up some of the points and will work on others as I go. I've only just started work on the article, mainly just MOS and consistency stuff at the moment, so I have not even touched the content yet. Any assistance with content would be greatly appreciated too. I agree with the point about the infobox, but I'd like to get some concensus on the issue before it is removed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just give me a shout if you would like assistance with anything, although my sources on the Vietnam War are quite limited. It might be an idea to post on the Australian military history talk page to see if anyone has any further sources on the subject, or would be willing to help. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic. The VN War is not well covered on WP. Hope to see more of this

• You need to be careful with the Ham book. I read the first section about the background history and there are quite a few factual errors on uncontested things in there. I don't think that is very scholarly.
• Something needs to be added about Nguyen Cao Ky visiting Aus in 1967 and Calwell insulting him and a few riots. I can pilfer info from Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia for you.
• I find it a bit odd that there is nothing explained about Nui Dat because the Australians actually built a base there. Before it was a mound of hill.
• In the timeline, there seem to be emphasis on VCs and the murder of the singer, which in my opinion didn't change the course of the war as much as the actual battles. Also, Australia didn't withdraw instantly when the ALP won so teh timeline needs to be changed. Secondly the Whitlam thing about rejecting ROV refugees needs to be explained more as it caused a bit of a stir, him being pro-communist and all that

YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the work you have put into improving the background section. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have the full details of the Edwards and Jupp works cited? Currently there are a couple of citations to these, but the full bibliographic details are not in the References section. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

As part of the WP:VG-MILHIST peer review collab:

• I have some issues with the tone, seemingly more informal and looser than I'd expect an article to be. This is compounded by some long sentences which are hard to follow and are littered with redundancies, for example "The origins of the Vietnam War itself are complex and may be traced back long before the engagement itself. In relation to Australia's involvement in the war, however, it may be seen that largely the origins lie in the rise of communism in Southeast Asia following the end of the Second World War and the fear of its spread which developed in Australia during the 1950s and early 1960s.[2]".
• I think the images need to be jiggered a bit, because on my display (~1200px) some of the left-aligned image are breaking up the placement of level three headings.
• There are some stubby paragraphs consisting of just one or two lines that need to be addressed (e.g., "Social attitudes and treatment of veterans"'s last line.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I will try to deal with the issues you have raised. In regards to the writing style in the Background section I'm probably a bit close to it to see the issue, so it probably needs an independent copy edit. Not sure what to do about the images as I'm not an image guru. Does anyone know how to fix the issue raised by David? — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dealing with tone issues in a lot of MILHIST PRs, so it might have to do with the sources themselves, I dunno. As to the images, it just needs some jiggering (left-aligned images to right, et cetera). If you really feel like you can't move it, add a ((-)) to the bottom of the section with the image and it will clear it, but that's generally bad as it creates lots of whitespace. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments:

• The statement in the lead that " it was not until the Fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975 that the last Australian soldiers were finally withdrawn from the country" is not supported by the citation, which says that the last troops withdrew in 1973. A small party of Air Field Defence Guards and many of the RAAF's Hercules were sent to Saigon in 1975, but this was to protect the Australian embassy and evacuate refugees.
• I agree with YellowMonkey's comments on Ham's book - while it's been popular, it was badly reviewed and isn't a great source. I'd suggest making greater use of the excellent official history series which the Australian War Memorial has published.
• The timeline section is unnecessary - these details should be in the article, so it's repedition
• The Background section should be more tightly focused on how and why Australia became involved - there's no need to provide a potted history of the war. The current coverage of how Australia became involved is rather simplistic - the Australian Government was keen to become involved because it genuinely believed in the 'domino theory' and that volunteering troops would lead to greater US engagement in the region.
• 1 RAR was only one of several units attached to the US 173rd Brigade - a full battalion group (including an NZ artillery battery) was sent.
• 1 RAR's unhappy experiences with the US 173rd Brigade should be covered - the fundamental incompatibility of Australian and US tactics (especially in a hard-driving airborne brigade) was a major factor in the Army and Government deciding that the Australian force needed to be self-contained and independent of US units.
• The 'Australian counter-insurgency tactics' section is a bit confused (and this is at least partially my fault). The last para contradicts most of the preceding paras and most of the section is various individuals personal opinions (some of whom aren't well placed to comment). It might be best to re-write this section to describe Australian doctrine and tactics and what the results of Australian operations were, leaving out the various opinions
• The disagreements between the Army and RAAF over how No. 9 Squadron was used should be noted - this led to very heated debates and the eventual transfer of the RAAF's transport helicopters to the Army in the 1980s.
• The section on the withdrawal of Australian troops needs to note that this began in line with US withdrawals
• The Social attitudes and treatment of veterans section is full of weasel words (eg, "came to be seen by sections of the Australian community in less than sympathetic terms", "generated negative views of veterans in some quarters", "some sections of the anti-war movement", "some World War II veterans", etc). Greater precision and better sourcing is needed. The strong popular support for the war throughout most of its duration (which included very well attended welcome home parades for most units at the time) should also be noted.
• A section on the impact of the war on the Australian military and Australia's strategic situation should also be noted. The withdrawal of the US from South East Asia forced Australia to adopt a more independent foreign policy with a much greater emphasis on the defence of continental Australia and this had important implications for the military's force structure. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick. Thanks for the review. I think I have now fixed the comment on the lead section (please take a look and let me know if it needs more work) and will try to fix the others as I go. To be honest I don't have access to the official history volumes so I'm hoping that someone else might have them. I have the Ham book, but as you say it is not the be all and end all. The only other source I have is Jeffrey Grey's Military history of Australia and he's a bit light on the details. Anyway, there's no rush so I will just keep working on bits and pieces as I can. I am hoping that perhaps a few interested parties might be keen on collaborating to get the article up to scratch. I'm fairly sure that User:Anotherclown has the official histories, but he is currently out bush. I've left a message on his talk page. Maybe when he gets back he might be able to help with some of these issues. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead looks good. I own one of the volumes of the official history ('On the Offensive') and have easy access to the rest through several libraries. I'd be happy to help out with the article. Some other things it could cover are:

• The performance of 1 ATF's civil affairs efforts
• The construction of the barrier minefield and its disastrous effects for 1 ATF
• More material on the RAAF and RAN
• The significant US disatisfaction with 1 ATF's performance and, ironically, the Australian Government's unwillingness to move it after Phuoc Tuy was largely pacified
• More on the dynamics of how 1 ATF operated (eg, the various phases of settling into Phuoc Tuy, securing the base area, securing the province, operating outside the province and pulling back to Phuoc Tuy in the last years of Australia's involvement) Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a bit of trouble getting accurate statistics on casualties and numbers of personnel that served. The article has some variations, e.g. 520 or 521 killed (I think it is 521 and have changed this), 2,400 or ~ 3,000 wounded (originally article had 2,400 but cited a source that actually has over 3,000), 49-50,000 or ~ 60,000 personnel served (article specifically mentions 49,968 in infobox but all the AWM stats seem to say ~ 60,000). Also in terms of determining the 521 killed, does this include the six personnel listed as missing in action that have since been located? This article seems to indicate that the figure of 521 only includes three of the missing personnel, so hence would it now be 524? (I believe that all six men listed as missing in action have now been located and confirmed as killed in action, but I could be wrong).

I suppose, however, that we can't really say 524 if none of the sources say it. Just thinking out loud, though. Sorry if this makes things even more confusing. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnam War nominal roll administered by the Department of Veteran's Affairs at http://www.vietnamroll.gov.au/ states that "approximately 61 000 Australian Service personnel who served in Vietnam during the period 23 May 1962 to 29 April 1975" and I'd suggest that this figure be used. I think that it's safe to assume that the 'missing' personnel were included in the figure of 521 killed on the AWM's site - there has never been any doubt that they were killed in action, and the 'missing' classification was to acknowledge that their bodies hadn't been recovered. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's little I can add to what's already been covered but to follow up on a couple of points Nick made, I can point you to some relevant stuff in other WP articles I've worked on, which might save you a bit of time writing or searching for sources. On the somewhat precipitate commitment of Australian troops, there's a bit in the Legacy section of Frederick Scherger, Australia's senior soldier in the late 1960s. For lack of cooperation between army and air force re. use of helicoptors, there's the Vietnam section in Alister Murdoch, the RAAF's Chief in the same period. Both include some choice quotes from particpants and later commentators. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what the others, particularly Nick have said, there's still more I'd like to see:

• "Australian Advisors, 1962–1972" only covers up to 1964. I'd like to see more on 1965-73, including the two Victoria Crosses, the involvement in parts of Vietnam other than Phuoc Tuy and the Australian involvement in the Phoenix Program.
• The text on the medical and logistical effort is inadequate. Remember that more Australians served in 1ALSG than in 1ATF.
• "Protests against the war" isn't entirely about the Anti-war Movement and probably shouldn't be - consider renaming the section something like "Home front" in line with the WWI and WWII articles. I'd like to see the bit about conscription expanded and a subsection on the anti-war movement. At the least, I'd expect to see mentions of figures like Jim Cairns, Joan Child and Simon Townsend.
• Perhaps a section on the politics. Particularly "all the way with LBJ" and the Clifford-Taylor mission.
• The discussion of Australian tactics is too glib and doesn't really come to grips with the reasons for the differences in tactics between US and Australian forces.

I'll see what I can do to help when I get back next week. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]