Talk:Battle of Ban Me Thuot

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Ban Me Thuot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CreationofGod (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Overall the article was good, but I would put forward the following suggestions:
    • Firstly, you could use {{cite book}} to format your referencese, and it should be organised alphabetically with the author's surname appearing first (eg. Thach, Pham N).
      • Secondly, your background is a bit short IMO and seems to focus slightly more on the North Vietnamese. You could provide some information on the South Vietnamese side; what was their situation politically and militarily before the battle??
        • Thirdly, after a person's full name had been mentioned once, you only need to use their surname thereafter when referring to them again, without mentioning their rank.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • Your article is well-referenced.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • The coverage is good, with a good view from both sides of the battle.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • Consider that most of the sources were taken from the Vietnamese communists, the article seem to cover the South Vietnamese side very well, in line with the rule of neutrality.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • This part is fine

• 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':

  • The images were used appropriately to highlight the event in question, with correct licensing.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Generally this article was very well-written, it covered the event very well. I will let it pass as GA Class.CreationofGod (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing the article, highly appreciate it.Canpark (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Battle of Buon Me Thuot → Battle of Ban Me Thuot — In keeping with convention that battles retain their historical names and spellings (e.g., Battle of Iwo Jima, not Iōtō; Siege of Antioch, not Antakya; Siege of Leningrad, not St. Petersburg), this should be moved to Ban Me Thuot. Alternatively, it should be moved to Buon MA Thuot, since that is the current transliteration for this town.

Elaboration: During the Vietnam War, this town was known as Ban Me Thuot (or Banmethuot), and that is how this battle is named in most of the literature. Since the war, a new transliteration for this Montagnard town has taken hold, Buon Ma Thuot, which is where our article on the town is located. It's illogical for Wikipedia to have a name that doesn't match the historical spelling, nor quite match the current spelling.

For evidence, Google Books is probably better than Google Web:

• Ban Me Thuot
• Buon Me Thuot
• Buon Ma Thuot

The same comparison on regular Google:

• Ban Me Thuot
• Buon Me Thuot
• Buon Ma Thuot

(Despite the effort to exclude Wikipedia, most results from the middle search do in fact derive from Wikipedia.)

If you Gsearch just on the town, the Web's post-1995 bias gives a lopsided advantage to the new spelling:

• Ban Me Thuot
• Buon Me Thuot
• Buon Ma Thuot

Verdict: Ban Me Thuot! Fortunately, most incoming links can be changed at one fell swoop by editing the Campaignbox Vietnam War template. —Groggy Dice T | C 07:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Battle of Buon Me Thuot to Battle of Ban Me Thuot as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 09:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments for further improvements

Hi, good work so far. I have undertaken a light copy edit of the article. There were a number of tense issues (for instance switching between past and present tense). I believe I have found most of them, but may have missed some. As such, I would suggest before taking it further, that you might try to get someone from the Guild of Copy Editors to go through the article. I have a couple of other suggestions for improvement:

• is there any way that the infobox can be tweaked so that is divided evenly down the middle? Currently, the South Vietnamese side is wider than the North Vietnamese and looks a little lopsided;
• the References should be presented as surname, first name, e.g. Dawson, Alan;
• is there a year/date of publication for the Dawson source?
• ISBN or OCLC numbers could be added for the References. These can be found at www.worldcat.org or Google books;
• in the Notes, the style is a little inconsistent, for instance sometimes you have "pp." for multiple pages (e.g. "Duong Hao, pp. 149–151), but then later you use "pp." for single pages (e.g. "Nguyen Van Bieu, pp.292"). I'd suggest just using "p." for single pages and "pp." for multiple page ranges. This seems to be the standard at A or FA.

Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks mate, I am working on your suggestions now.Canpark (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ID of the Tank in the picture

That looks more like T-62 than T-54. Note the shape of the turret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.241.4 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)