Talk:Operation Frequent Wind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Operation Frequent Wind has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 9, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
July 9, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
December 28, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Gerald Ford (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gerald Ford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Pritzker Military Library WikiProject (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

1975 Thai Khac Chuong photo[edit]

No American dude punching the Vietnamese guy off the helicopter? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that photo (see here: ) was taken during the evacuation of Danang or Nha Trang several weeks earlier and so wouldn't belong on this page. Mztourist (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Source: [1]. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

50 000 in two days?[edit]

Maybe it is a typo? "U.S. tactical victory with US forces airlifting over 50,000 people to safety". Please check. Cheers, --CopperKettle 11:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

7000 in the helicopter evacuation - what we know as Operation Frequent Wind. 50,000 in the fixed-wing evacuation in the preceding 6 weeks. Mztourist Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the C-130 which apparently took off with more than 450 people on board, April 29th? Account says 4500kg (9900lbs) overweight. (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Find a reliable source and you can put it in. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Van Es photo[edit]

The article mentions, repeatedly, the iconic Hubert van Es photo of refugees lined up to climb up to a rooftop helipad, and there's even a recent photo of the building, but the famous photo itself is nowhere to be seen. How come??--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because its copyrighted by Corbis User:Mztourist talk) 10:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

C-47 accident[edit]

This accident seems to have connections to OFW. The article is outside my area of knowledge, so if an editor is able to work it in, please feel free to do so. I've already added the accident to the articles on the airline and airfield. Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was undoubtedly taking part in OFW (whether formally or informally), but as it was one of hundreds of fixed wing and rotary aircraft that left Saigon or what was left of South Vietnam around this time (a number of which crashed or were ditched at sea) its only a minor detail not really worthy of inclusion in the OFW article. I think it best belongs in the article on Air America and U-Tapao where you have placed it. Regards Mztourist (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tactical victory?[edit]

My knowledge of this subject is quite limited, but as far as I know this was an evacuation operation not a combat operation, so how did the U.S. forces won a "tactical victory". Who did the Americans defeat in this operation? I prefer a rewording of this result, to something more neutral like "tactical success".Canpark (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They evacuated all Americans and most 3rd party nationals while at the same time deterring the NVA (and the ARVN for that matter) from interfering with the evacuation. That ranks as a tactical victory.Mztourist (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It was in the North Vietnamese interest not to interfere with the evacuation process, because that could provoke a military response from U.S. forces. North Vietnamese leaders were sensible enough to realise that. In such context, the claim of "tactical victory" is really overstating the achievements of the U.S. operation, and is only a matter of opinion. Unless you could provide a reliable source which specifically states that Frequent Wind was a "tactical victory", I will stand oppose to the wording which you applied. The same applies to Operation Eagle Pull.Canpark (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You are one editor, many many others have raised no similar objection. Your agenda is obvious.Mztourist (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Tactical Victory is standard wording on Wikipedia, while Tactical Success is not. Wording should be standardised, inventing wording on-the-fly leads to hundreds of different classifications of the outcome, and this make the status fairly meaningless, and in that case we'd be better off without an 'outcome' at all if we can't be clear-worded and concise with it. Kyteto (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that Tactical Victory is appropriate here in that the entire undertaking WAS a military operation and that the mission goals WERE successfully completed. The tacit cooperation of the NVA (beyond the shelling and closing of the airfields to fixed-wing extractions) was a fortunate circumstance which they made for their own tactical reasons, but it does not detract from the fact that the U.S. military forces executed a successful operation under very trying circumstances. Mark Sublette (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Mark Sublette I completely agree with your analysis. Actually there was limited combat - the 2 Marines being killed at the DAO Compund being the obvious example. One writer, John Guilmartin, who was a pilot of a 40th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron HH-53 during the Operation claims [[2]] that his gunners engaged NVA machine guns on approach to the DAO Compound and that he heard over the radio that an air strike was conducted against an NVA 57mm radar-guided gun, but I have not been able to find another independent source to verify this and so did not include it on the page. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Good intel there about the possible airstrike, but you are correct to hold off reporting it until a credible source can be cited. My most frustrating unreportable "truth" is the origin of the name of British guitarist Robin Trower's song "Bridge of Sighs" - corresponded with the artist via his manager via e-mail, and got a straight answer - but, as ORIGINAL RESEARCH, I can only list it on the album article's Discussion page. Damn it! Mark Sublette (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk message contribs count logs email) 19:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are some prose issues to deal with early on in this article. I'm not a fan of "quick fails" for articles unless absolutely necessary, so if we can sort these out I'm very keen to carry on the review after that.

The major point here is that the Planning, Preparations on the ground, Options 1 and 2 - fixed-wing evacuation, Task Force 76, Tan Son Nhut under attack, The DAO Compound, The Embassy, Results of the evacuation, Chaos at sea and Casualties sections all need some substantial work on paragraph structures. In all of these, there are numerous one sentence paragraphs (e.g. "At 17:00 the first CH-46 landed at the Embassy.") that really need to be formed into proper paragraphs. While you can have single sentence paragraphs, typically a paragraph will follow a theme or idea through at least two or three sentences. Most of these paragraphs are far too short, and as a result the text becomes very "bullet point" like, if you'll excuse the phrase.

If you could take a stab at brigading the various sentences into paragraphs, I'd be very happy then to work through in detail the remaining points. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's all gone quiet, so I'm going to have to fail the article at this review. I'd be happy to rereview at a later point however. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Trivia section[edit]

I've twice removed a wodge of trivial "in popular culture" material. It would be helpful if anyone proposing to restore it could read WP:IPC and find some proper references to demonstrate the real-world notability of anything that is here. --John (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said when I reverted your deletions, Operation Frequent Wind has passed into popular culture in a wide range of media as shown by the examples given. You need to specify which section(s) of WP:IPC you are relying on for proposing these deletions. Mztourist (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Content. It relates to WP:V, if you've ever come across that. It's one of our core policies. --John (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
They are verifiable, for example the Simpsons episode is clearly cited. Rather than focussing your attention on trying to remove a small section of a page that has been there for over 2 years why don't you go and create some new pages? Mztourist (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I take it you added it yourself and nobody has ever challenged it before? Here's a clue for you; when you read serious sources on OFW (as I'm sure you do), do they tend to talk about the Simpsons mention or not? If they don't, why do you think that is? Rather than focusing on trying to preserve a small section of no encyclopedic merit, why don't you go and try to find proper sources for it (eg BBC, Guardian, CNN or a serious book, the old-fashioned type made out of paper)? Fansites and other primary sources won't work. --John (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
As WP:IPC puts it, "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources." --John (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
So, your real problem with the examples given is that you don't think they're notable enough? The Simpsons is a (world-)widely-seen program that, after over 20 years on the air, is pervasive in popular culture in its own right. I'm not familiar with the Nick show, but 5 seasons and a movie suggest it was at least somewhat popular. I do remember China Beach. All three seem like reasonable examples. If you have better ones, fine, but I see no reason why these should not stand. (I did remove the Miss Saigon reference because the original editor could not verify it and I could not find a source for it.) I'd like to see this resolved to nom the article for GA again, as the only complaint by the previous reviewer was the cn tags. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This section should be removed, as there is no indication of the significance of these entries. Per WP:IPC, "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." It also fails the three-point test and contravenes what Wikipedia is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Most In Popular Culture sections are simply lists of where the relevant topic appears in books, movies, television and music. Please give some examples of military pages where the In Popular Culture section is supported by "reliable secondary sources". Mztourist (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
RAF Northolt, Horses in World War I, and Battle of the Alamo are quick examples. When reliable secondary sources are unavailable, the editors of most high-quality military articles exclude such material. See also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
As another example, see the Battle of Agincourt article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
RAF Northolt just states where the base has been used in film and television, how does that indicate its "cultural reference is generally significant"? Horses in World War I, I assume you are referring to the Legacy section? If you read it, it effectively just lists out memorials and paintings of horses in WWII, arguably the number of these testifies as to the significance. Battle of Alamo, I assume you are referring to the Legacy section? I don't argue that the battle was culturally significant, but in my read the only statement that evidences its cultural significance is "there can be little doubt that most Americans have probably formed many of their opinions on what occurred at the Alamo not from books, but from the various movies made about the battle." otherwise it is generally just details of books, movies and songs about the battle, longer but not materially different than what exists for Operation Frequent Wind. Battle of Agincourt again I wouldn't dispute its cultural significance, but basically the Popular Representations section lists out books (Henry V is of course very convincing) and films. My fundamental point is that the IPC or Legacy section tends to be a listing of representations of the topic in popular culture, rather than a discussion of the cultural impact of the topic and the more numerous, tangible (statues, paintings etc) and older (Shakespeare) those representations are the more credible the section is deemed to be.Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
But now you're moving the goalposts: the comment to which the examples were a response asked for "some examples of military pages where the In Popular Culture section is supported by "reliable secondary sources"", as inclusion in secondary sources is an indicator of significance. The examples I gave fulfill that request; this article does not. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found to support the material in this article, it should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not moving any goalposts, just pointing out that the examples you gave don't satisfy the criteria you cited. Surely you can see that the IPC for RAF Northolt is just a listing of movies and tv shows that have used it as a setting? There is nothing there that says for example "RAF Northolt's place in popular culture has been affirmed by ...." And is Bristow (the reference cited for Northolt) really a secondary source or is it an official history and therefore a primary source? Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The criteria I cited was "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment". The examples I cited use reliable secondary sources; this article does not. Do you intend to attempt to find reliable secondary sources to support the material in this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Ummm no RAF Northolt doesn't and nor do the others, as I said these are just recitations of where the topic appears Mztourist (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you intend to attempt to find reliable secondary sources to support the material in this article, or do you not? The current sourcing in that section here is abysmal. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I have added a source for the Simpsons and reinstated Miss Saigon with sourceMztourist (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

All: I'd be keen to know folks think if we're likely to be able to resolve this issue soon, or whether it would be better to close the current GAR for the time being. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the Photo section into IPC and am awaiting any further comments from the authors who have a problem with the sectionMztourist (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
You need to add reliable secondary sources for the other entries, please. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Apart from the Simpsons I am unable to locate reliable secondary sources (though the Hey Arnold Christmas episode features prominently in online commentary), I reiterate my view that this section is being held to a different standard than many other pages on Wikipedia Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Nikki - are you content with the sourcing as it stands now? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
There are still a few problems: most of the Miss Saigon paragraph isn't sourced by the given citation - only the last sentence is, and that is a bit closely paraphrased for comfort ("considered legal action against the show, but decided against it" vs "considered legal action but decided against it"). I don't have access to the Richmond source, so can't evaluate how much of the Simpsons paragraph is supported; the other source supports only the quote and is of unclear reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Frequent Wind/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 19:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial page created. I'll review properly over the next few days. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Review done - some copyediting required, as per below. I'll put on hold. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I have revised to incorporate most of your comments as detailed below. Thanks Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Mztourist, I don't like having to do this, but the ongoing disagreements about the trivia section are clearly running counter to the "stable" GA requirement. I'm going to have to fail the article at this stage, and encourage the editors involved to reach an enduring conclusion on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Frankly I think its ridiculous that GA is held hostage to 1 contributor who doesn't like the In Popular Culture section. Refs have been provided but because Nikkimaria doesn't think they're good enough that stops it being approved for GA? I really think that you need to take a wider view of the stability of the article as a whole rather than focussing on that one sectionMztourist (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

  • "The airlift left a number of enduring images." - given that "left" can have two different meanings (one very pertinent to an airlift!), would "resulted in" work better, and make the meaning clearer in the sentence? (OR "Many enduring images were produced of the airlift."?
    • Done
  • "Preparations for the airlift already existed as a standard procedure for American embassies." - didn't quite read right to me; probably this is because you've got a specific ("the airlift") and the general ("American embassies") in the same sentence.
    • Done
  • "By mid-April, contingency plans were in place and preparations were underway" - are these the same as the standard procedures above?
    • Yes
  • "Air support was not needed as the North Vietnamese recognized that interfering with the evacuation could provoke a strong reaction from US forces." - "In the event, air support was not needed..." might improve the flow here
    • Done
  • "On 28 April, Tan Son Nhut Air Base came under artillery fire and attack from Vietnamese People's Air Force aircraft. " In the lead, the reader doesn't know what this air base is doing.
    • Done
  • "The evacuation took place primarily from Defense Attaché Office compound " - "the Defense Attache..."
    • Done
  • "began around two in the afternoon on 29 April" - date format needs to be consistent
    • Done
  • "third country nationals " - are these non-Vietnamese, Vietnamese...?
    • Done
  • "With the collapse of South Vietnam, an unknown number of VNAF helicopters and some fixed-wing aircraft flew out to the evacuation fleet. " - in the lead, you could lose "an unknown number".
    • Done
  • "Evacuation plans are standard for most American embassies" - "were standard" is probably more relevant.
    • Done
  • "approximately 8000 US citizens" - you need to be consistent in formatting of the figures (e.g. 8000 versus 8,000)
    • Done
  • "There were approximately 17,000 Vietnamese employees on embassy rolls which using an average of seven members per family meant that the number was 119,000 and taken with other categories of Vietnamese the number quickly increased to over 200,000." - you probably need to spell out that the families needed to be evacuated too. It may also be worth explaining why (imagine if someone didn't know about the Vietnam war - why do you need to evacuate Vietnamese from Vietnam?).
    • Have added "at-risk", obviously if they are at risk and need to be evacuated they would want to take their dependents with them.
  • "Option 1..." - the formatting of the bullets here doesn't look right.
    • Done
  • "On 1 April..." - there are three paragraphs here each starting with a stark date.
    • Have changed some, kept some
  • "Evacuation Control Center" - unclear why this is in capitals
    • Done
  • "Also on 1 April..." - like the third sentence, a repetition of starting sentences with dates.
    • as above
  • " C-rations and petroleum, oil and lubricants had been stockpiled, power-generating facilities had been duplicated, sanitary facilities were completed and concertina wire protected the perimeter" - C-rations needs linking or explaining; unclear why power-generating facilities (are these the same as "electricity generators", btw?) needed to be duplicated.
    • Done
  • "On 7 April... On 9 April... On 11 April... On 12 April..." - etc.
    • as above
  • "Air America" - needs linking
    • Done
  • "Marine Corps" - if you're going to abbreviate above, you need to use it in the text.
    • Done
  • "On 13 April thirteen Marines" - "13 Marines"? A single sentence paragraph here, by the way.
    • Done
  • "By late April Air America helicopters were flying several daily shuttles from TF76 to the DAO Compound to enable the 9th MAB to conduct evacuation preparations at the DAO without exceeding the Paris Peace Accords' limit of a maximum of 50 military personnel in South Vietnam, this at a time when the North Vietnamese army was overtly breaching the Peace Accords." A very long sentence. The final clause feels like editorialisation, by the way.
    • Done
  • "In late April the MSG Marines were ordered to abandon Marshall Hall/Marine House, their billet at 204 Hong Thap Tu Street (now 204 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai Street), and move into the combined recreation area in the Embassy compound." - non-military people might not know what a billet is. What is the combined recreation area? NB: I think you could safely lose the address in this sentence.
    • Billet xreffed. Address is of interest to readers who visit Saigon
  • "The two major evacuation points chosen for Operation Frequent Wind were the DAO Compound adjacent to Tan Son Nhut Airport for American civilian and Vietnamese evacuees and the US Embassy, Saigon for Embassy staff." - you need a comma after "Vietnamese evacuees"
    • Done
  • "The plan for the evacuation would see convoy buses prestaged throughout metropolitan Saigon at 28 buildings designated as pick-up points with American civilians, trained to drive those buses, standing by in town at the way stations." - unclear what the way stations here are - are they the same as the prestaged psitions, or the pickup points, or something different? If you could find an alternative verb to "prestaged" (which is very specifically military logistical!) it might help the flow.
    • Done
  • "By late March the Embassy began a thinning out of US citizens in Vietnam" - "began to reduce the number of US citizens in Vietnam"?
    • Done
  • "In late March, two or three MAC aircraft were arriving each day and these aircraft were used for the evacuation of civilians or as part of Operation Babylift." - What's operation Babylift?
    • Done
  • " rather than combat loading, each evacuee required a seat and a seatbelt, reducing the number of passengers that could be carried on each flight." - What is combat loading?
    • Done
  • "Each C-141 would carry 94 passengers while each C-130 would carry 75, although these requirements were relaxed, and then ignored altogether as the pace of the evacuation quickened"- relaxed in that they could carry more, or that they could carry less?
    • Done
  • "By 22 April 20 C-141 and 20 C-130s flights were flying evacuees out of Tan Son Nhut to Clark Air Base." - "flights a day"?
    • Done
  • "On 23 April..." - the paragraph starts to break down into dated sentences again here.
    • as above
  • "2500", "5000" - again, needs to be consistent in how commas are used in numbers
    • Done
  • " It was decided that from that time only C-130s would be used " - tense is wrong here; it needs to be "It was decided that from this time..."
    • Done
  • "Between 18 and 24 April 1975, with the fall of Saigon imminent, the Navy concentrated off..." - this brings the active part of the sentence (The Navy concentrating vessels) to the middle of the sentence; particularly if it is starting off a new section, well worth bringing that bit forwards.
    • Done
  • "Task Force 76" - this section looked a bit light on explanation, and felt (to me at least) like a stark list of vessels by name. Is there anything more we could say about this to give it more context?
    • Not really, its a group of ships assembled for a specific purpose
  • "8 21st Special Operations Squadron CH-53s and 2 40th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron HH-53s" - the "8" and "2" should be words
    • Done
  • "Tan Son Nhut under attack" - this section also falls back on starting each paragraph with a time/date. Watch the "numbers in words" issue here as well.
    • Done
  • "flightline" - I don't know what this is; I'm guessing something to do with the runway?
    • Done
  • " .51 cal and 37 mm ground fire" - worth considering here how this would read to a non-military person
    • Done
  • "At 03:58, C-130E Hercules, 72-1297, c/n 4519, of the 314th Airlift Wing and flown by a crew from the 776th Tactical Airlift Squadron, 374th Tactical Airlift Wing out of Clark Air Base, Philippines, was destroyed by a 122 mm rocket shortly after having offloaded a BLU-82 at Tan Son Nhut Air Base and taxiing to pick up evacuees. " - 72-1297, c/n 4519? A BLU-82? You could probably lose the detail of the crew if you wanted to make the sentence a bit easier to parse (the active verb is embedded right in the middle of the sentence at the moment
    • Done
  • " until one was shot down, presumably by an SA-7." - it would be helpful to say "an SA-7 missile" for non-military readers.
    • Done
  • "General Carey's threat to use the AH-1J SeaCobras flying overhead " - "the AH-1J SeaCobra helicopters" would make it clearer to non-specialists.
    • Done
  • "AAA" - should be expanded as an acronym
    • Done
  • "2 orbiting" - as previous


  • "helo lifted" - expand abbreviation
    • Done
  • "USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19)" - the LCC number was given earlier, and I don't think it needs to be repeated
    • Done
  • "2,000 feet (610 m) " - ideally you would provide alternative metric figures for the other distances in the article as well
    • Done
  • "Air America committed 24 of its 28 available helicopters to support the evacuation and 31 pilots agreed to stay in Saigon to support the evacuation; this meant that each helicopter would have only one pilot" - I couldn't see why this was the case (24 helicopters and 31 pilots isn't one pilot per helicopter?)
    • Done
  • "contemporary reports and photos state" - minor, but I don't think a photo can state, only show
    • Done
  • "Air America Bell 205 serial number "N47004"" - I'd argue you don't need the serial number of the helicopter. If it's essential, then it should follow the same format as other serials in the article.
    • Relevant for The Photo section
  • "The first wave of 12 CH-53s from HMH-462 loaded with the LT 2/4's command groups" -CH-53 what? HMH-462 and LT2/4 didn't mean much to me.
    • HMH-462 and 2/4 defined under Task Force 76, BLT definition added. Not sure what you're asking about the CH-53s?
  • "The Embassy" - another section which starts almost entirely with date/times
    • as above
  • " begin to remove the tamarind tree and other trees and shrubbery" - is it necessary to pull out the tamarind tree as being particularly special? (If so, worth linking it)
    • yes the first pargraph states that Ambassador Martin had forbidden the removal of the tamarind tree. I didn't want to go into it in detail, but Martin linked the fall of the tree with America's prestige and commitment to South Vietnam
  • "some staff proceeded to take alcohol from the Embassy's stores" - "take", or "steal"?
    • thats a moral judgment, the alcohol was being abandoned
  • "At 03:27 President Gerald Ford ordered that no more than 19 additional lifts would be allowed to complete the evacuation." - I wasn't 100% clear I understood this.
    • there was confusion and disagreement as to how many more helicopters were required to complete the evacuation and how many would be allowed
I don't think the text has changed here - as written, it isn't clear what it means. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • " the elevators were locked by Seabees on the sixth floor" - some people wouldn't know that a Seabee is a person, rather than a lock or piece of equipment - might be worth clarifying slightly.
    • Seebees is xreffed
  • "and one of the stolen ICCS UH-1Hs, serial number 69-16715, were circling around the USS Blue Ridge. " - is the serial number essential to the story?
    • Done
  • "The stolen Air America Bell 204, serial number N1305X," - ditto.
    • Done
  • " the pilot of a VNAF Cessna O-1 Bird Dog" - "...Bird Dog plane"?
    • the Wikipage is Cessna O-1 Bird Dog
  • "Can you move these helicopter" - if in the singular, worth adding a "sic" in to make it clear.
    • its a direct quote of Maj Buang's broken English, sic-ing it will ruin the flow
      • That's what the use of a [sic] is for - to show the reader that it's an error from a direct quote, not a typo. The MOS supports this. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "For an operation of the size and complexity of Frequent Wind, casualties were relatively light." - as an explicit judgement, worth attributing it.
    • Dunham quote
My apologies - I meant, attributing in the text itself (e.g. "Historian Dunham considers that, for an operation...") Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Marine corporals McMahon and Judge killed at the DAO compound were the only KIAs of the operation" - the grammar of the second half, using KIA, doesn't seem quite right.
    • Done
  • "Lady Ace 09, CH-46 serial number 154803" - again, is the serial number essential?
    • Yes, its an historic aircraft

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

  • There's some odd formatting in places; compare "<ref name="Drury" />{{Rp|258}}" with the other citation formatting.
    • Done
  • Fn 30 takes me to an Expedia page... :(
    • Yes the former billet is a hotel in Saigon, but ref has been removed
  • Fn 56 lacks an access date.
    • Not sure which FN you're referring to
It's fn 58 now - Leeker, Dr Joe F (2009). "Air America in South Vietnam III: The Collapse". University of Texas at Dallas. p. 19. Fns 101, 102, 108, 110, 111 also need them. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Some on-line citations lack publisher/author information (e.g. fn 104)
    • Done
  • Some ISBN numbers have hyphens, some don't - they should really be consistent
    • Done
  • "04/29/1982" and "10/14/1981" aren't in the same date format as the others
    • Done

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

  • Appears to so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "In popular culture" section - this either needs resolving, as per the tagging, or removing as trivia. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • This sections seems to be being held to a different standard to that of other pages. In most pages, the in popular culture section is simply a reference to where the topic appears in current popular culture, however some authors here take the view that the topic must be specifically referenced in texts which set out its cultural influence. I'm not sure where one finds such a text and so have adopted the more general approach that references to the topic in popular culture (like The Simpsons) is relevant and sufficient here
      • Any material on the wiki must be verifiable, and not original research, backed up by reliable secondary sources - whether in a popular culture section or not. The section still contains a range of primary source tags and is contested at the section level. Fn 112 doesn't mention OFW, by the way (at least by name) - given this is self-published, I'd challenge whether it is a reliable source; Fn 113 attributes the scene to the opera Miss Saigon, not OFW; I can't find the reference to OFW in fn 114. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

  • None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

  • Appears so at the moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

  • Appears neutral at first read through. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • "Map of the U.S. fleet deployment off Vung Tau for Operation Frequent Wind." - excess period at the end
  • "Aerial view of the US Embassy, Saigon, showing Chancery building (left), parking lot (center) and Consulate compound and French Embassy (top)." - ditto
  • "Evacuation of Vietnamese by Air America on 29 April 1975." - ditto
  • "VNAF Hueys and a CH-47 Chinook arrive at USS Midway", "VNAF pilot jumps from his Huey after dropping evacuees on USS Midway", "Major Buang taxies to a halt", "Midway deck crew surround Major Buang and his family" - for consistency, these need periods. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Not quite sure what standard to adopt is, have deleted all the periods
  • "The photo" - confusingly, the section has two photos under it rather than one.
    • The second photo shows a more recent view of the same location which may be of interest to readers, its pretty obvious which is The Photo

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Frequent Wind/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Smallchief (talk · contribs) 19:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The article should mention that Operation Frequent Wind was only part of the evacuation. Frequent Wind evacuated 57,000 people. But the total number of Vietnamese who fled during those few days while the North Vietnamese finished their conquest of the country, totalled 130,000. Most of those not evacuated by Frequent Wind sailed out to sea and were picked up by US naval vessels offshore. The evacuees were taken to Guam for processing and onward flight to the United States. Smallchief (talk 19:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in undertaking a GA review. Operation Frequent Wind was a US military operation and that is all the article is trying to cover. OFW was part of the Fall of Saigon and so I think the details of other Vietnamese refugees who left South Vietnam during and immediately after the Fall of Saigon are more appropriately covered there. Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I still think that Frequent Wind should be put in context to avoid having a reader believe it was the only evacuation going on in Saigon. The majority of the Vietnamese evacuees were not connected to Frequent Wind and this should briefly be mentioned. It only requires about three sentences to do so. If this article is strictly concerned with the military operation "Frequent Wind," then why are we telling the famous story of the Vietnamese pilot who landed a small plane on a carrier? That wasn't part of Frequent Wind. Much as I believe in the maxim "good deeds never go unpunished" I suppose I could fix up this bit of the article if you wish. Smallchief (talk 13:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that OFW is at all out of context to the Fall of Saigon and the collapse and escape of the RVNAF to the 7th Fleet was undoubtedly part of OFW. I have added some deatils of Military Sealift Command and the sea evacuation of Saigon Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
That meets my concerns. Thanks. Smallchief (talk 17:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Smallchief: Is there anything further that needs to be done here? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I did additional edits in the summary paras to give more prominence to the fact that self-evacuation by Vietnamese was also going on in those final days -- and in fact more people self-evacuated than were evacuated in the official Frequent Wind evacuation. The summary and article also lacked any mention of what happened to the Vietnamese evacuated -- which would seem to be a question in the mind of the reader. I summed that up by saying they were processed as refugees by the U.S.
In rereading the article I also found a small inconsistency. The summary paras say the helicopter evacaution from DAO was accomplished with only "limited small arms damage" to the helicopters. The DAO evacuation section says the helicopter evacuation was carried out without "any apparent damage" to the helicopters. Which is correct?
I'd say "both". In context, I can understand how one would describe scrapes/dents/small perfs as "no apparent damage", as well as calling it "limited small arms damage" in a more rigorous/formal context. I wouldn't change one or the other if they are both direct quotes, but maybe drop the "any apparent damage" sentence altogether if you feel it necessary. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S. The article should also have a link to the main article Fall of Saigon -- or, if the link is already there, it is not prominent enough. Smallchief (talk 11:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. I see there is a link. But maybe it should be placed in a more prominent position? Smallchief (talk 12:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
@Smallchief: How's this? I could have also just replaced "takeover of the city by the North Vietnamese Army (PAVN)" with Fall of Saigon, which is a little smoother, but less informative.
As far as the other stuff, like Mztourist, I don't think the article implies that it was the only evacuation or even the most important – it was just another mission, like many others that have their own article. I don't think it's necessary to add too much detail about where they fit in the grand scheme of things – that's for the main war/campaign articles to do. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. I felt the article as previously written left 2 unanswered questions. "What happened to all those Vietnamese who were evacuated?" The answer to that was not easy to find on Wikipedia. I searched. My other question was, "I thought 130,000 Vietnamese were evacuated from Saigon -- not 50-some thousand as this article says?" Likewise, the answer to that question was not easy to find on Wikipedia. So I thought both questions needed clarifying in this article. I'm satisfied. Thanks for your consideration and patience. Smallchief (talk 19:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
@Smallchief: Good working with you. Will you be passing the article now, per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions § Step 4: Finishing the review? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The review appears complete from the reviewer's comments, so I'll close and pass this. Wizardman 23:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Wizardman: Thanks! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


"Thunderstorms increased the difficulty of helicopter operations." Are there references that explain to what degree this was a problem? --20yardsaway (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the Marine history by Dunham.Mztourist (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not close enough[edit]

  • " Japanese journalists, concerned that they would not recognize the tune, had to get someone to sing it to them".(ref name=Pilger/>:63)

Needs clarification; notability not demonstrated. --20yardsaway (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This article passed GA, I don't agree with the extensive edits you are making and will review and revert them when I have some spare time. Mztourist (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

HMM-164 and other Marine Corps squadrons[edit]

I didn't see HMM-164 mentioned as one of the squadrons involved. HMM-164 had the call sign of Swift and played a significant roll. A photo of Swift-22 was the CH-46 Sea Knight often used showing the "last helicopter out." I flew with both HMM-164 and HMM-165 in 1972. Our command ship was the Blue Ridge. the same command ship for Frequent Wind.

I'm not sure how HMM-462 & 463 tied in. The 400 series are usually Marine Corps Reserve squadrons. I have seen the squadron numbers on the helicopters in videos. This doesn't mean those squadrons participated, and they probably did not participate, in the evacuation. It's important to understand how the air element of a Marine MEU, and a Marine MAU at that time, is organized. The air squadron was based around an HMM squadron, today it would be a VMM squadron of MV-22 Ospreys. At that time it was organized around an HMM squadron of CH-46 Sea Knights. When deployed to sea, the HMM squadron picks up a couple of CH-53 Sea Stallions, a couple of AH-1 Cobras, and a couple of UH-1 Huey gunships for support. The squadron is then called HMM-xxx reinforced. The CH-53's were probably attached to either HMM-164 or HMM-165. I have never seen a squadron of CH-53's aboard ship as a unit. I know people who were in HML-367 at the time. The had helicopters attached to HMM-164 and HMM-165. They also sent helos to the Philippines in anticipation of refugees. You can't say a certain Marine squadron was involved in an operation just because you see that designation on the helicopter. You will never see a squadron of Ch-53's, AH-1's or UH-1's operating from aboard ship as a unit. They are a part of an HMM or VMM reinforced squadron.

Most of these squadrons were from MAG-36 and transferred to MAG-39 for this operation. A terse item: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

HMM-462 & 463 are mentioned in the official US Navy history, while HMM-162 is not and so HMM-164 is not specifically listed among the units forming part of Task Force 76, although presumably it was part of MAG-39. In the Embassy section it is specifically mentioned that it was a CH-46 of HMM-164 that lifted the last Marines from the Embassy roof. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)