Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group/GA1

GA Review

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

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. I usually like to give general suggestions first, and then give more specific suggestions once they are addressed. Here are some initial suggestions:

• According to WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have a lead that is three or four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
• Linking dates is no longer required, and a lot of reviewers (especially for WP:FAC) ask them to be de-linked.
• Be consistent on how dates are written. In the infobox they are written "day-month" and in the prose they are written "month-day".
• There is a good deal of uncited text. There should be at least a citation in every paragraph.
• This last question may be because of my naivete about government goings on, but how could unpublished government documents be sources? Aren't they, um, unpublished?

The lack of in-line citations is the biggest problem I see. I'll put the article on hold for seven days to allow for these changes. Nikki♥311 22:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The seven days are up, so I am failing the article due to a lack of response. Nikki♥311 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to the question above about unpublished documents: A lot of documents that have never been published can be found (and xeroxed) in the National Archives. Ed Moise (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Lead expanded
2. Dates delinked
3. Dates appeared consistent when I edited, someone else actioned
4. Text appears adequately cited (claiming expert opinion: historian)
5. Unpublished government documents are sources: archives (claiming expert opinion: historian)

I believe the criteria raised in the review have been addressed fully. Raising rating to "A" class. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)