124:
209:
Well I've printed out RMG's 15 As and this delisted one and am reading some books and working through and scribbling down refs to book pages, but some of the unsourced bits that people complained about before are still there. Also some of the refs only cover part of the preceding information, or just
139:
Being from outside of the project, I came across this article as a B; fixed the GA review elements, then decided to put it forward. The standard of this article is high, citations are to the point and support the narrative, the narrative is sufficient as a description of the organisational function
355:
So this old warhorse is up for A-class again? Already had the pleasure (fleeting on wiki) of getting it an A-class. Then along came a bot that deleted the illus. that were clearly sourced as US govt. docs - reducing it to a B). I'm pretty much through with wiki and tired of constantly re-editing or
356:
revising what should make common sense to an informed reader (eg the "uncited text" in the 3rd
Indochina War section). Leave the poor thing alone and leave it for readers who have a working knowledge of the material (they being the only ones that will bother reading it in the first place).
210:
list a book without any specific page or chapter, and I'm still in the process of chasing it down. I haven't started reading about SOG or the bombing campaigns/logistics trails, mostly the less technical ones: Tet, Easter, 1975, Cambodian Civil war etc.
318:
I am unable to discuss content as it is not a field of which I have any knowledge. If these issues can be addressed and someone with more knowledge of content is prepared to voucher for the article, I could be convinced to change my vote. Cheers. —
133:
172:) has 299 edits to the article as I write this, did you even attempt to ask him if you believe the article meets the criteria and be nominated here? If this were at FAC this would be speedily closed because of this fact. -
102:
69:
365:
348:
328:
254:
227:
204:
183:
149:
62:
337:. While it mostly reads OK, it could use a copyedit for some jargon, especially in the last couple sections. Also, the sourcing must drastically be improved before it will meet the requirements. –
263:: Good effort, however, unfortunately I do not believe that this article at the moment meets A class standards. The main area it falls down in is citation. These are my comments:
107:
21:
292:
Last paragraph in
Shining Brass section (there is a citation at the start, but a large number of sentences after wards that give the impression they are uncited);
384:
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.
312:
There are a large number of hatnotes in the
Withdrawal section which I feel impact on the article's style, is it possible to work these links into the text?
17:
169:
43:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
375:
324:
34:
307:
The MOH recipients list in the
Recognition section needs citations, as does the last paragraph of that section.
193:
58:
361:
247:
220:
163:
320:
200:
145:
83:
54:
357:
239:
212:
159:
179:
274:
343:
301:
There is a citation needed tag that needs dealing with in the Third
Indochina seciton.
196:
141:
79:
174:
338:
134:
Talk:Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam_-_Studies_and_Observations_Group/GA1
280:
There are a couple of dab links that need fixing (Green Beret and KIA);
70:
Military
Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group
304:
1st and last paragraphs in
Withdrawal section need citations;
289:
2nd, 5th and 7th (last) paragraph in Gulf of Tonkin section;
136:
is the last review conducted of the article, a GA review.
112:
270:
External links are okay according to the link checker;
295:
5th, 6th and 8th paragraphs in Daniel Boone section;
237:Also notethe previous GAC was an arbitrary driveby
194:Talk:Battle_of_Khe_Sanh#Time_to_try_FA_again.3F
158:- since you are not the primary contributor,
8:
273:Images are missing alt text and need it per
33:The following discussion is preserved as an
18:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
91:
374:The above discussion is preserved as an
94:
298:1st paragraph in Commando Hunt section
286:Last paragraph in Foundation section;
7:
192:See that editor's wiki-fatigue at:
28:
283:The following needs citations:
366:23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
349:00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
329:10:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
255:05:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
228:05:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
205:05:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
184:04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
150:02:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
63:01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
401:
381:Please do not modify it.
40:Please do not modify it.
129:(downgrade discussion).
123:Prior nomination:
120:
119:
88:
392:
383:
346:
341:
321:AustralianRupert
250:
242:
223:
215:
92:
76:
42:
400:
399:
395:
394:
393:
391:
390:
389:
388:
379:
344:
339:
248:
240:
221:
213:
182:
73:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
398:
396:
387:
386:
370:
369:
368:
352:
351:
316:
315:
314:
313:
310:
309:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
290:
287:
281:
278:
271:
265:
264:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
187:
186:
178:
140:of the group.
131:
130:
118:
117:
116:
115:
113:External links
110:
105:
97:
96:
90:
89:
78:Nominator(s):
72:
67:
66:
65:
47:
46:
45:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
397:
385:
382:
377:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
354:
353:
350:
347:
342:
336:
333:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
311:
306:
303:
300:
297:
294:
291:
288:
285:
284:
282:
279:
276:
272:
269:
268:
267:
266:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
251:
244:
243:
229:
225:
224:
217:
216:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
195:
191:
190:
189:
188:
185:
181:
177:
176:
171:
168:
165:
161:
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
137:
135:
128:
127:
122:
121:
114:
111:
109:
106:
104:
101:
100:
99:
98:
93:
87:
85:
81:
75:
74:
71:
68:
64:
60:
56:
55:Abraham, B.S.
52:
49:
48:
44:
41:
36:
31:
30:
23:
19:
380:
373:
358:RM Gillespie
334:
317:
260:
249:bananabucket
246:
241:YellowMonkey
238:
236:
222:bananabucket
219:
214:YellowMonkey
211:
173:
166:
160:RMÂ Gillespie
155:
138:
132:
125:
108:Citation bot
77:
51:Not promoted
50:
39:
32:
22:Assessment
197:Fifelfoo
170:contribs
142:Fifelfoo
103:Analysis
80:Fifelfoo
20: |
376:archive
335:Comment
156:Comment
95:Toolbox
35:archive
275:WP:ALT
261:Oppose
16:<
362:talk
325:talk
201:talk
164:talk
146:talk
126:here
84:talk
59:talk
378:.
340:Joe
180:004
175:MBK
364:)
327:)
253:)
226:)
203:)
148:)
61:)
37:.
360:(
345:N
323:(
277:;
245:(
218:(
199:(
167:·
162:(
144:(
86:)
82:(
57:(
53:–
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.