Talk:Operation Eagle Pull

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Eagle Pull/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Axl (talk · contribs) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This article has been waiting at WP:GAN for a while. I shall review it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The lead section needs to be expanded. It should be an overview of the main points of the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded it somewhat Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Strangulation of Phnom Penh", was the Khmer Republic the legitimate government? Was the Khmer Rouge opposed to the Khmer Republic? Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes if you follow the link there is a detailed discussion of its establishment and legitimacy.Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a sentence or two explaining this background. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Legitimacy is a loaded issue when it comes to discussing the Khmer Republic, it was established in 1970 by a military coup that overthrew Prince Sihanouk. I have added some short wording in the beginning of the Strangulation section Mztourist (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Strangulation of Phnom Penh", paragraph 1: "On 27 January, 7 ships limped into Phnom Penh". "Limped"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In the sense that they had been badly damaged and were the only survivors of a 16 ship convoy.Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Strangulation of Phnom Penh", paragraph 1: "On 3 February a convoy heading downriver hit a minefield sown by the Khmer Rouge at Phu My". One of these places? Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, those are all in Vietnam. There is no page for the location in Cambodia. Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's too bad. A stub article for this Phu My with a link would be helpful, but not essential for GA status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Strangulation of Phnom Penh", paragraph 1: "due to the Khmer Rouge control of the riverbanks minesweeping was impossible or at best extremely costly." Costly in what sense? Dangerous? Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why not say "dangerous"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Costly in the sense of loss of lives and ships. I have added another sentence and ref Mztourist (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Strangulation of Phnom Penh", paragraph 1: "By 17 February the Government abandoned attempts to reopen the Mekong supply line." In may be better to say "Khmer Republic" rather than "Government" so that there is clear, consistent naming of the force. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the terms can't be interchangeable.Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the article does not previously mention that "Khmer Republic" is synonymous with "government". I had to check the wikilinks to confirm this; even then I wasn't entirely sure. Actually if you agree to my suggestion above (to add a couple of sentences explaining that the Khmer Republic was the legitimate government), then I would be happy with this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed and added wording at the beginning of strangulation Mztourist (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Strangulation of Phnom Penh", paragraph 2: "On 22 March rockets hit 2 American supply aircraft". There was no mention of US involvement earlier in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Does there need to be? Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, there does. I suspect that this has become self-evident to you because of your familiarity with the subject. However it certainly wasn't obvious to me. Again, this is something that could be mentioned in an introductory paragraph, perhaps outlining the US presence as well as the conflict between Khmer Rouge & Khmer Republic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Have clairifed the para

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Strangulation of Phnom Penh", paragraph 3: "On 1 April the Khmer Rouge overran Neak Luong and Ban-am". Should this be capitalized: "Ban-Am"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Strangulation of Phnom Penh", paragraph 3: "Premier Lon Nol resigned that day and went into exile; the final collapse of the Khmer Republic was imminent." Is there a reference for this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ref added Mztourist (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Planning", paragraph 1: "The evacuation plan was developed and refined as Khmer Rouge forces closed in on Phnom Penh, starting as early as 1973." Was this a contingency plan developed jointly by the US & the Khmer Republic? Also, is this referenced in Tilford? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a US evacuation plan, the reference is in the following sentence.Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please include the statement that this was a US evacuation plan. The "reference" isn't an in-line citation; it's the title of the plan stated in the text. Can an in-line citation be added please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Mztourist (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Planning", paragraph 6: "The command element supervised the ongoing fixed-wing evacuation of more than 750 Cambodians over the next 7 days in the face of 80–90 rounds of 105mm artillery and 107mm rocket fire each day. By 10 April Khmer Rouge fire had become so heavy that the fixed-wing evacuation was ended." Did the artillery & rocket fire damage/destroy any of the C-130 planes? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no record of that. Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean "no planes were damaged" or "there is no record of damage to planes"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

there is no record that the planes were damagedMztourist (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's unfortunate (that there is no record). Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From "Planning", last paragraph: "The Embassy staff prepared to leave on 11 April, but the evacuation was delayed until the following day in order to allow the USS Hancock to arrive on station." Is there a reference for this? What does arriving "on station" mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added "off Kampong Som" and moved the ref. Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. It's still not clear what "on station" means. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think its obvious, but have changed the wording anyway Mztourist (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

From "The evacuation fleet", is there a reference for the components of the fleet? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 13 Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In the text, reference 13 is only linked to USS Okinawa. If it is relevant to the whole task force, it should be moved to the introductory sentence ("... the force comprised"). Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional refs added Mztourist (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Are the escort ships also referenced to Dunham p. 111? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

From "The evacuation fleet", last paragraph: "As the Khmer Rouge had no air force and only limited AAA capability...". What is "AAA"? "Anti-aircraft"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, ref added. Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

From "The evacuation fleet", last paragraph: "The evacuation helicopters were painted with infrared low-reflective paint and equipped with ALE-29 flare dispensers to defeat SA-7 missiles that the Vietnam People's Army had successfully employed against the Vietnam Air Force in South Vietnam and which it was suspected that the Khmer Rouge may also possess." The latter part of the sentence is rather awkward. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

reworded. Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

From "The evacuation", paragraph 11: "Escorted by a third, backup HH-53, this Super Jolly Green Giant, despite severe vibrations, made it safely back to Ubon Air Base in Thailand." I don't think that the colloquial name "Super Jolly Green Giant" is helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

reworded Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The latter part of the "Aftermath" section requires referencing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Added one ref Mztourist (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a reference for the last sentence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

added Mztourist (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary

My thanks to Mztourist for improving this article and answering my questions and requests. At present, there is only one minor outstanding point, which I am sure that Mztourist will address. (In "Evacuation fleet", are the escort ships referenced in Dunham p. 111?)

No the escort ships are referenced to Footnote 1 The Final Curtain. Mztourist (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I have moved the reference to make it clear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The article is well-written and clear.
2. It is accurate, with appropriate reliable references.
3. The article addresses the whole topic.
4. It is neutral in tone.
5. It is stable, without any edit war or significant controversy.
6. The article is nicely illustrated with free content pictures from Wikimedia Commons.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

GA pass

All my points have been addressed. The article meets the GA criteria and I am awarding GA status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, effort and useful inputs in doing the review Axl Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)