Talk:12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nguyễn Xuân Phúc - 2016 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit

Some comments:

• There is both TMI and not enough information in discussing the plenaries. There's too much focused on the opening remarks. For example, this sentence: Nguyễn Phú Trọng delivered the opening speech, and said that over the past year, the Politburo and the Secretariat had directed the Government Party Committee, other party committees and relevant agencies to urgently and seriously prepare schemes, reports and submissions to the 7th Plenary Session. It doesn't add very much because it's obvious that party committees and agencies would be submitting reports for the plenary. Another example: As CPV General Secretary, he instructed that 12th CC members should thoroughly consider the documents and proposals in the drafts. It's obvious that they should consider documents and proposals; that's their job as delegates. On the other hand, there isn't enough information on the substance of the meetings. For example, the "regulations on the enforcement of the Party's Charter and the regulations on party inspection, supervision and discipline" are discussed several times in the 4–7 July 2016 section, but there's no description of what those policies are. The discussion of wage reform is a good example of how you can incorporate substance better in other parts of the article.
• Report and resolution names should probably be in quotes.
• This is almost entirely cited to primary sources. Are there secondary sources discussing what occurred at each plenary?
• Left some cleanup tags.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

I haven't begun proper work on the "Analysis, interpretations and legacy" yet, but Western scholars and commentators (in the case of Vietnam) rarely comment on specific plenums. There has to be, in such a case, a lot of primary sources. This is due to the severe lack of transparency.

As for you're argument that it's both too detailed and lacks information, I can't really do that much because of, as I said before, the severe lack of transparency. I mean, compared to the Chinese and the Soviets, the Vietnamese are extremely transparent. As you understand from reading this article, that says a great deal!

As for everything else, thanks for copyediting the article :) I'll begin work on expanding the "Analysis, interpretations and legacy" section. My ambition is to turn this article and the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam to at least WP:GA and the lists (12th CC members, 12th CC alternates, 12th Politburo, 12th Secretariat, 12th Inspection and the 12th Central Military Commission=) into WP:FL. I want at least a GA topic status.

.... However, as you have discerned, its extremely difficult to write about communist institutions. They hold their cards close to their chest! TheUzbek (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FenrisAureus (talk · contribs) 07:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow traveller! I will be reviewing this nomination over the course of the next 14 days. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated: 02:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC) by Thebiguglyalien

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

2c) it contains no original research

2a/2b/2c Combined spot check

Reference #	Y/N	Comment
86		—
153		—
52		—
119		—
18		—

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

All things flagged by Earwig seem to be false positives. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

Deepest apologies, fellow traveller. I have been trying but I just don't have the focus to review this article right now. Extenuating circumstances necessitate that I withdraw as reviewer. A bot will put the nomination back into the cue. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)