Talk:Hue–Da Nang Campaign

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hue–Da Nang Campaign article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hue–Da Nang Campaign 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
March 1, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Military history: Asian / Southeast Asia

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force

Vietnam High‑importance

	Vietnam portal 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.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Question

Silly question about the lead - was the war still known locally as the "American War" even by 1975? Shimgray | talk | 16:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hue-Da Nang Campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Well written and organized. I made a number of minor copy-edits.[2]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I formatted one citation (ref#1); assume good faith for all off-line sources.

I removed the EL, as per WP:EL, as it is already used as ref#1
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Sufficeinet detail and focus.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Suitable captions and rationales for non-free use.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
An excellent article. I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for assessing the article.Canpark (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]