Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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.
- Promoted -MBK004 01:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
Another coup! General Nguyen Khanh decided to declare a state of emergency, provoking massive demonstrations against the junta, and he then had to make lots of concessions, including a promise to eventually return to civilian rule, as well as sacking some disliked officers. They responded by trying to overthrow him, but the coup collapsed without fighting; later there was a sham press conference to deny that there were any disagreements and the coup plotters were acquitted for political reason YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: no issues that I can see with this one. Comments for review purposes are:
- there are no dab links, no broken ext links, images have alt text (no action required);
- images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
- I believe that the article meets all five A-class criteria:
- A1: article is well referenced, with appropriate citation style, to reliable sources: yes;
- A2: article is comprehensive, seems accurate (although I don't have specific knowledge), neutral and focused: yes;
- A3: article is well structured: yes;
- A4: article is well written in my opinion and would not require much work to be MOS compliant or reach FA standards: yes;
- A5: article has appropriate images which are licenced correctly (as per above): yes.
- I made a couple of tweaks, please check that you are happy with them. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I believe the article meets the A-class criteria. A couple of minor comments:
- Fourth para of the lead, "oncerned" should be "concerned"
- I know that some writers would question the use of the word "However,..." to begin various sentences in the article. (NB: I'm not one of them, but...!)
- "Minh reportedly claimed that Khanh was the only one who would get funding from Washington, so they support him, prompting Khiem to angrily say "Obviously, Khanh is a puppet of the US government, and we are tired of being told by the Americans how we should run our internal affairs".[11]" - unclear if this sentence means that both Minh's and Khiem's comments were reportedly said, or if Minh's was reported and Khanh's was definitely made.
- I removed "reportedly" as nobody has disputed it etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Several US advisers attached to units involved in the coup were chased away by rebel officers who did not want interference." - I wasn't sure if this meant that they were expelled from the units with which they were already based, or if they were chased away by the officers when they turned up at the barracks.
- They were already there on a day-to-to-basis, which was clarified YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hchc2009 (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: No major issues, although there are some stylistic things that might need attention.
- 3rd paragraph of the lead "behind the scenes" might not be needed. It could just read "supported by".
- This line "Khiem and Thieu sought out US Ambassador Maxwell Taylor and sought a private endorsement for a coup" might read better without using sought twice. Something like "Khiem and Thieu sought out US Ambassador Maxwell Taylor for a private endorsement of a coup" would read better, IMO.
- I'm also not sure about the "chased away" reference mentioned above. The wording makes it sound like they were physically driven away from units (it brings to mind a pretty comical image, actually). Would "banned from observing coup units" or something similar work for you?
- Aside from those little quibbles this is a good article, IMO.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. 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.