Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Long Tan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Long Tan

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

This article is about the Battle of Long Tan. This is the best known Australian battle of the Vietnam War. Actually, for most people it is the only battle of the war that they know about. It was neither the biggest nor the most important Australian battle of the war. truth to tell, it barely qualifies as a battle; it was more of an engagement really given the size of the forces involved. But through the workings of the Matthew effect an enormous amount has been written about it, and the Wikipedia article, the work of many editors, reflects that. I do feel that having a having a comprehensive article on one battle of the war at least is very useful, and that this article meets our standards for A class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by CPA

Just a small comment here. The article is pretty big it has 130,000 bytes and sure if we only count the readable content then I still would say it's really big. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has 95 KB of readable prose. A section was spun off into its own article. Quite certain that the readers like it this way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails A2

As CPA-5 has noted it's too long, it ignores Wikipedia:Summary style and so it's a clear failure on criteria A2 "Does not go into unnecessary detail." but no doubt that will be brushed over, just like it was for its GA review. Mztourist (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

16,000 words (plus captions and footnotes) on a battalion/regimental-sized skirmish!? Fails WP:SS and WP:AS, and so A2: "does not go into unnecessary detail." Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A2: "The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And you don't have to mark a hundred papers on it. More trees have been devoted to Long Tan than any another action of the war in Vietnam, and probably more than any post-World War II battle, and any Australian battle of World War II except the Kokoda campaign. (I would be interested in Zawed's opinion on how Vietnam is remembered in New Zealand.) During what we now call the "long peace" (1972-1999), the Australian Army endlessly re-fought the war in Vietnam, especially Long Tan. (Which doesn't seem nearly as stupid now as it did back then.) It's anniversary is commemorated by Vietnam veterans. Unlike most articles, I know how this one is received by readers. I am not the editor who has added the most material to the article - I'm the one who has removed the most material, but I will not remove relevant, cited, verifiable material without consensus. (This article was flagged for my attention by the MilHistBot as one of the project's best articles - the next will follow in due course - I don't want to overwhelm A-class with them.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Robinvp11

Lede;

On the night of 16/17 August, mortars and recoilless rifles (RCL) attacked Nui Dat from a position 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) to the east until counter-battery fire made it stop. Doesn't make grammatical sense ie weapons are fired by someone.
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
D Company found weapon pits including mortars and RCLs, and clashed with VC around midday 18 August. Maybe "The next morning D Company, 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (6 RAR), departed Nui Dat to locate the firing points and the direction of the enemy withdrawal, making contact with VC units around midday 18 August."
Re-worded this too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The battle's outcome was indecisive, with disagreements on its effect between the 275th Regiment and D445 Battalion. The D445 Battalion regarded the battle as a success... What was the disagreement? Its clear what D445 felt, what about the Vietcong?
I think this is too detailed for the lead. Omitted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I played around with the wording of the Lede a wee bit, change it back if u want :)

While I realise the importance of Long Tan in Australian history, I tend to agree that the article is too long - eg Order of Battle could easily be spun off into a list sub-article, Background and Preliminary Operations could and should be a lot more concise.
Anotherclown already did that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties; As the scale of the VC's losses were revealed, it became clear D Company had won a significant victory. By late morning, a total of 113 bodies and two wounded had been found, while numerous drag marks and blood trails indicated many more casualties had been moved the previous night. This section doesn't align with the discussion in the "Aftermath". Robinvp11 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.