Talk:Battle of Huế/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs)

I’ll have a look at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to get started on this.

I have done a little copy editing and expect to do more. Flag up here anything you are unhappy with.

• It is not usual to have citations in the lead.
• Casualties and losses in the infobox: Source 2 needs summarising.
• Could the significance, and possibly location, of the DMZ be explained in the first sentence?

A puny start. I'll crack on as soon as I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

All above done. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get on with this later today. A bit weightier than Phnom Penh, so I may do it in installments. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to come back at me on any of the points below if you don't agrre with either my point or my suggestion.

• "destroying their legitimacy among the South Vietnamese population" May convey the meaning better with something like 'attempting to destroy their ... '?
• "entered the Citadel in the early morning hours of the next day" There have been no dates for a while, and none in this section so far. Either put a date somewhere in the first two paragraphs of this section, or, maybe, amend to 'entered the Citadel in the early morning hours, approximately 24 hours after the start of the attack' or similar. Or both.
• "old city"; "old City": could you pick one and standardise?
• "Three United States Marine Corps battalions were protecting the air base at Phú Bài (approximately 16 km southeast of Huế), Highway 1 and all western approaches to Huế, when there should have been two complete regiments." I think that this sentence is trying to do too much and gets convoluted and difficult to understand. Maybe break it into two (or three) sentences?
• "Huế" or "Hue"? Pick one.
• "LtCol" Abbreviations are fine, but need to be in full the first time you use them, with the abbreviation in brackets. (As with CAP.)
• "to stage the company" "to stage" is not going to make sense to many readers, is there some other way of phrasing this?

Got to the end of "US Marines" and it is looking pretty good. More to follow. Apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. All done, awaiting your next instalment. regards Mztourist (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• "house-to-house and street fighting" Is there a difference? If not, one is redundant.
• "By 22:15 that night, Tolson's command had asked III MAF to coordinate with I Corps and Task Force X-Ray its designated area of operations in the Huế sector." I am unclear what this means. Could you "unpack" it a little?
• "6 miles (10 km) northwest of Huế" Mostly you give metric measurements without converions. But twice you use miles, with converions. Consistency please.
  • Some sources use miles so I state miles with the conversions, happy to just change them all to metric.
• " the Battalion commander decided to breakout from the encirclement by a night march to an ARVN hilltop position from where they could be resupplied and the casualties medevaced. The 2/12th Cavalry dug in in position for the next 4 days." The first sentence reads as if they brokeout; the second as if they didn't. Possibly an intervening sentence stating that the commander's intention was successfully carried out - if it was?
• "PAVN sappers successfully dropped the Bach Ho (railroad) and the Trường Tiền bridges across the Perfume River" You and me know what "dropped" means, but possibly a more general term?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• "crossed the An Cuu Bridge in a Rough Rider armed convoy" What's a "Rough Rider convoy"?
• "The battalion consolidated its night defensive positions and waited to renew its attack the following day." This doesn't seem to be cited.
• "Treasury Building" or "Treasury building"?
• "a Mule-mounted 106mm" Really?[!] And does it need 'recoilless rifle' adding?
• "106mm" should be '106 mm'. (As in 106 km.)
• "rescuing Lieutenant Colonel Pham Van Khoa, the Mayor of Huế and Thua Thien Province chief" Is that three separate people? If so, it needs a 'the' in front of "Thua".
  • One guy, the Lt Col was Mayor and Province chief, I've put the roles in brackets.
• "methodically shooting their occupants" Unless that was the war crime that it reads as, you may wish to rephrase.
  • There was no war crime, sources don't say they had surrendered, the Marines killed them in their fighting holes.
• "secured a bridge over the Phu Cam Canal (16.457°N 107.578°E) and the block on the opposite side" I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. I assume that the bridge wasn't literally over the block. A couple of words gone MIA possibly?
• Dates: Are you using DMY or MDY? (Just a question - no action beyond an answer required.)
  • DMY
• Is the article meant to be written in US English? (Just a question - no action beyond an answer required.)
  • US English

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Gog a few responses above. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have run a tool to standardise the dates. Feel free to revert any or all of the changes. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "Huế under Communist control": I'm not sure that the quote marks are in pairs. Could you look at it. Maybe use for any quotes within the main "". And are all of those semi colons in the original?
• The Cronkite quote is (far) too long. Direct quoting of some of the pithier phrases is fine, but could you paraphrase most of it into Wikipedia's voice; which should considerably shorten it as well.
  • I've shortened it a little but as I think it was one of the most prescient commentaries on the status of the war at that point I think the bulk of it should be retained.
• I am not sure that the Keiler quote in "Comparisons with Fallujah" adds anything on the topic of the article. Consider cutting back to just the first paragraph. (Or cutting it back to just the Hue bits and moving it to Analysis.)
  • I've never like the Fallujah comparison section so happy to take a knife to it. I've shortened it and merged it into Analyzing the battle.
• Cites 3, 8 and 21 use "journal=" but don't specify a journal.
  • Have fixed 8 and 21 but don't have access to 3 so have no idea where it came from

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Gog, a few responses above. Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "File:Marines firing a 106mm recoilless rifle from classroom in Hue University.jpg" The source of this is unclear. The web link doesn't link to it. And if the source is page 183 of U.S. Marines in Vietnam 1968 The Defining Year then the web link needs deleting and the full details of the book giving.
  • I've updated the image url to link directly to the book on the Marine Corps University website, is that enough? Or do I need to add all the book details as well?

No. That's fine. Thanks.

• "File:Marine M-60 machine gun team fighting in the Citadel.jpg" As above. (Am I missing something?)
  • As above
• Book titles should be in title case; eg cite 1 isn't. (See [1].)

Nearly there. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, comments above. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I am now rereading the whole article to check that I am happy with the changes and to see if I pick up other bits and pieces.

• Lead: "large, conventional, U.S. forces" and "for ARVN, US and Allied forces". Either U.S. or US is fine, but could you only use one variant throughout? There may be other examples.
• Lead: "Considering its logistical value and its proximity to the DMZ (only 50 kilometers (31 mi)), Huế should have been well-defended, fortified and prepared for any communist attack. However, the city had few fortifications and was poorly defended" Could you point me to where this is covered in the main article?
• Lead: "(2,800 of them executed by the PAVN and VC)" Why is this mentioned in the lead and not "South Vietnamese forces killed 1000-2000 people after the battle". On the surface it comes across as a bit PoV.
• Lead: The PAVN/VC lost an estimated 2,400 to 8,000 killed; infobox: "8,113 killed (including 5,133 killed at Huế)"; Article: "MACV gave figures of 5,133 PAVN-VC killed at Huế." - no mention of the 8,000/8,113.
• Is there a reason why four figure numbers sometimes have a comma after the fourth figure and sometimes don't?
• "50 kilometers south of the DMZ"; "6 miles (10 km) northwest of Huế"; "17 km north of Huế". Could you standardise? I take your point about sources (I get the same issue in many of my articles); in these cases maybe add '|disp=flip' to the conversion template.
• "a Mule-mounted 106 mm recoilless rifle" We know that you mean a M274 ½-ton 4×4 utility platform truck, but most readers will assume a mule; possibly a Wikilink at first mention?
• "the Marines then cleared out the spider-holes methodically shooting their occupants" Back to this. It may well just be me, and it's not a deal breaker, but would you have a problem with 'the Marines then methodically cleared out the spider-holes, shooting their occupants'?
• Just a passing comment. I understand that the Cronkite statement was the defining, even iconic, summary of the hopelessness of the US mission. Nevertheless, I feel that you quote it at too great a length, when much of it would be better summarised. But, I can live with it if you prefer it how it is.

And that, I think, is all I have. Many thanks for the positive way you have responded to my various earlier comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, I think I've addressed all the points raised above. In relation to the Cronkite quote I'd like to keep it as it is. Regards Mztourist (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine work. A very solid article. Happy to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Gog, its a better page now. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed