Talk:Battle of Loc Ninh

First Battle of Loc Ninh

Why is the article about the First Battle of Loc Ninh not mentioned here? That shouldn't be a redlink, of course--if it still is, fix it to link to its article, too. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

see below

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Loc Ninh/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well done, no problems.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I have two quibbles: It is difficult in some instances to keep track of whether the individual and unit names are NVA or ARVN, in other words, who is doing what to whom. I will make some comments in the article where I think further clarification may help. The article merits a short section addressing the massive failure of the ARVN/US Advisers to take action on the plentiful intelligence available, if such information is available. The South Vietnamese Army's failure to act on this intelligence appears to be a major element of the NVA's success. I won't hold the article up GA for these issue though. These are probably GA level issues.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Appropriate references provided.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Good quantity of references at appropriate points, although I am unable to verify the quality or accuracy of the individual citations in books that are not digitally available.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Very good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Well done.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good, neutral tone throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very stable.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Very good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Ready for GA, with suggested improvements post-GA suggested.

;

First Battle of Loc Ninh - again

In order to distinguish this article from that about the First Battle of Loc Ninh, I have added a hatnote. Will interested editors also note that on that article's Talk Page I have raised concerns highlighted recently by a veteran of that conflict that that page is misnamed, as there was an earlier battle on 11 June 1966 which could claim that title. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)