Talk:Battle of Muong Khoua/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 01:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Progression[edit]

  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review[edit]

  • Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
  • Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd)
  • Alt text: Images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is down again, but Google searches don't reveal any issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: one duplicate link:
    • Laotian
Have removed dup link. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria[edit]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • "...the troops at Muong Khoua under Captain Teullier resisted a Việt Minh ...", do we know Captain Teullier's first name? If so it should be included at first instance (so both in the lead and the first time in the body of the lead) per WP:SURNAME. If its not is the source then that's fine.
      • Unfortunately not, I've reviewed the Fall sources and only surname is provided. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • "The French command—headed then by Raoul Salan—ordered the series of French outposts in northern Laos to resist the Việt Minh invading forces for as long as possible to buy time for the fortification of Luang Prabang and Vientiane, the capital cities of Laos." Consider instead: "The French command—headed then by Raoul Salan—ordered the establishment of a series of outposts in northern Laos to resist the Việt Minh invading forces for as long as possible to buy time for the fortification of Luang Prabang and Vientiane, the capital cities of Laos."
    • "...isolated many of the outposts with the night-time fog known as crachin...", "with a", instead of "with the".
    • "Muong Khoua, together with its satellite outpost Sop-Nao, was under the command of Captain Teullier, with the satellite outpost being overseen by Lieutenant Grézy." Include first names here if known per WP:SURNAME.
      • Unfortunately again not listed. A couple of online possibles but I can't confirm. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • "Grézy, the French Lieutenant in command of the Sop-Nao garrison...", consider instead: "Grézy, in command of the Sop-Nao garrison..." (we already know he was both French and a lieutenant).
    • "...Teullier at the mother strong point...", is the term "mother strong point" used in the sources? It seems a strange term - perhaps consider "main strong point" or something like that?
    • "... who left 13 dead and four wounded behind...", consider instead: "... who left behind 13 dead and four wounded..."
    • "...equipped with three 81mm and two 60mm mortars...", are both adjectives and as such there should be a hyphen between figures and units of measurement, i.e. 81-mm and 60-mm per WP:MEASUREMENT.
    • This is a little unclear: "which failed and left 22 dead." French, Viet Minh, or both?
    • "This defeat prompted a reversion to previous tactics of slowly "gnawing away" at the French outpost, and Giap...", Giap needs to be formally introduced with full name and position.
    • "On May 22, four days after the fall of the Muong Khoua garrison, three of its soldiers—the garrison radio operator French Sergeant Novak and two Laotians...", should be "On May 22, four days after the fall of the Muong Khoua garrison, three of its soldiers—the garrison radio operator Novak and two Laotians...", removing rank at second use per WP:SURNAME.
    • "Bernard Fall made note of the significance of the battle as ...", Bernard Fall should be wikilinked at first mention.
    • Missing word here: "...however after defeat the coverage...", I think this should be "...however after its defeat the coverage..."
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • All major points cited using WP:RS.
    • No issues with OR.
    • Suggest using short citations to prevent repeating information in the notes that is already in the references section (see WP:CITESHORT). (suggestion only)
    • can ISSNs be added to the journal articles used in the references section? Check out Worldcat.org which should have these.
      • Believe I have got these. I've tried for the ISBN or OCLC and got as many as I could find. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
    • Overall level of coverage seems appropriate.
    • In the lead you mention that the battle served as a precursor to French and Việt Minh strategies at the decisive Battle of Điện Biên Phủ the following year but this isn't mentioned in the body of the article. Suggest covering in the Aftermath section, then removing the reference from the sentence in the lead.
      • Have done my best, but I've kept the lead sentence as, I feel, the idea of precursors to Dien Bien Phu is of great importance, as the lessons learned or ignored in the preparation for and execution of that battle were pivotal events in the war. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Sorry I must of been unclear - happy with the lead sentence. What I meant was to include a sentence elaborating on the link b/n this battle and Dien Bien Phu in the aftermath which you have now done. When I wrote "then removing the reference from the sentence in the lead..." I meant remove the inline citation (after adding it to the aftermath). Quite happy with how you have covered this now, although I would suggest including a wikilink to Battle of Điện Biên Phủ in the aftermath. Anotherclown (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • No issues here.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • No issues here.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
    • Images are PD and seem appropriate to the article.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
    • Overall quite a good article, just a few minor issues (mainly) prose to deal with. Happy to discuss anything you need clarified or disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks Anotherclow, I hope you don't mind me inserting my replies under your various sections. What are your thoughts on my changes? S.G.(GH) ping! 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)