Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nguyễn Văn Nhung
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Previous review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nguyen Van Nhung/archive1
Managed to scrape out a few odds and ends about this obscure officer, so I'm back YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No problems reported with alt text, external links, or dab text. Well Done!
- Work a little on your intro, I'd like to have at least two paragraphs rather than one big paragraph. Also, could we get an infobox for the person in question up in the article? I think that would help. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate. Yes
- A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. Yes
- A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.Yes
- A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. Yes
- A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate. 'Yes
- Support - looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- I recall passing this fine article for GA a year ago, and most the work since then has only improved it through additional detail. Couple of things:
- They speculated that Nhung committed suicide to avoid having to live to see Minh being demoted or humiliated. Do I assume that "they" is the journos mentioned in the previous sentence? If so, might do to clarify by substituting "Newspapers" or "The media" for "They"...
- Heh, good thing I asked since it wasn't the journos that were meant at all...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nhung’s death was never formally solved. reads oddly to me. It seems to cry out for "murder" to be substituted for "death". Is that what you mean or is there a remote possibility that he really did top himself, in which case you can't be so definitive? If that's the case, I'd reword to The circumstances of Nhung’s death have never been officially confirmed (or ...formally resolved) or something like that.
- Tks for mod, I just tweaked a tiny bit more. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than this the structure, perspective, referencing, and illustration remain of a high standard and I look forward to supporting when these minor points are resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.