Talk:Action of 23 August 1967

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 23 August 1967/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll begin the review tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, review done. Some small copy-editing points below, but other than those looks good to go. A nicely researched article, enjoyed reading it. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I've added in the comparative price for you - nice article, passed at GAR. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

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

Good prose, a few minor queries below:

• "Operation Bolo" - I don't think Bolo should be in italics under the MOS guidance. Same with Rolling Thunder. (NB: but I could be wrong, the MOS is a big document...!)

Whatever the case, I have de-italicized the operation names.Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Originally the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted a list of 94 targets to be hit over a period of 16 days, but U.S. President Lyndon Johnson decided to apply pressure gradually, so the list of targets grew to 427." - I had to think about this a bit: it would be worth tweaking the text to explain when applying pressure gradually required the larger number of targets.

I have rewritten, not sure if it make sense: "Originally the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted a list of 94 targets to be hit over a period of 16 days, but U.S. President Lyndon Johnson decided to include military targets in order to gradually apply pressure on the North Vietnamese, so the list of targets grew to 427."

• "the United States had clearly failed" I'd lose the "clearly": you probably don't need it in the sentence, and it is uncertain if you are saying that it was clear at the time to everyone that it had failed, or whether it was clear in retrospect.

I've removed the word "clearly".Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "For the third phase of Rolling Thunder, which occurred from spring 1967 to early 1968, involved hitting" - is there a missing "operations" before involved?

Yes. I have added the missing words.Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "it allowed them to destroy rather than just threatening" - "threaten" rather than "threatening"

Done.Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "real war-making potential" - I was unclear what this was.

I rewritten the sentence like this: "U.S. airpower to be used against the primary war-making capabilities of North Vietnam, by striking at military targets that were previously denied to the fighter-bombers of the U.S. Navy and Air Force".Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "to attack American bomber formations as it was approaching its target" - should be "as they were approaching their"http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Action_of_23_August_1967/GA1&action=edit&section=1#

Done.Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "the bomb-laden aircraft to jettison their load prematurely" - again, if aircraft are plural, should be "loads"

Done.Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Then instead of dueling with U.S. strike aircraft," - missing comma after "Then"

Done.Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "F-4 fighters had a greater energy level " - what's an energy level? I'm guessing something to do with more speed, but I'm not certain.

That refers to the aircraft's total energy relative to the Earth's surface. I have added a link to Aircraft specific energy.Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "radar and missile systems on the F-4 fighters to perform at its maximum level," - "their maximum level"

Done.Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I had to look this up, but apparently the MOS would prefer "3.00pm" to be "3:00 pm".

DoneCanpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Chieu and Coc then dived out from the overcast and swept down on ‘Ford’ flight and the strike formation" - I'm not sure "the overcast" is right; I suspect "an overcast", as it hasn't been mentioned before in the text.

Your right, it supposed to be "an overcast".Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "since 2 December 1966, when they lost five aircraft" - minor, but if you put "when they had lost" it would prevent any confusion about whether this later part of the sentence was referring to this incident or the 2 Dec.

Done.Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "stood down their fighter force, was because" - the comma shouldn't be there

Done.Canpark (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "$900 million " - could you give a modern equivalent figure? (Measuring Worth will Certainly provide one, there may also be a template on the wiki, but I can't remember where...)

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

• Good.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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;

• Yes.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(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;

• Yes.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• None seen.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

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

• Yes.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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

• Fine.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Appears neutral.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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

• Stable.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

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

• Most appear fine. Nguyenvancoc.jpg was transferred from the Vietnamese wiki, and lacks info on source etc.; I can't read sufficient Vietnamese to check from the original file, so I'm accepting it here in good faith. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

• Fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)