Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dixie Mission/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dixie Mission

I believe this article meets all the requirements for a featured article. The subject is an important topic, more so with the changing relationship between the United States and the Peoples Republic of China. I believe it clearly conveys the history involved, and is entertaining to boot. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment It might be an idea to write stubs for the red links if you think they're important enough to link to. I haven't read through the rest of it, but this is something you can be getting on with before other people put their oar in. Terri G 11:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed the other day. Hopefully, everything else looks to be in good shape.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—Not badly written, but there are glitches; these need to be weeded out to reach the required "professional" standard. Here's a false contrast ("However"):
    • "The idea for a military mission in Chinese Communist territory preceded the development of the Dixie Mission, such as a plan by the Office of Strategic Services to send agents into north China. However, the first major impetus for the mission began with a memo written on January 15, 1944, by John Paton Davies, Jr., a Foreign Service Officer serving in the China Burma India Theater (CBI)."
    • Inconsistent terminology for "the Communists" (initial upper case is odd unless you first use "Chinese Communist Party", i.e., their title).
    • "potential and useful wartime ally"—why not "potentially useful wartime ally"?
    • "due to the disputed nature of the Chinese communists"—Bit clumsy.
    • "a bright point between the People's Republic of China and the United States during the time of the administration of President Richard M. Nixon."—First item a little odd. Remove "the time of".

These are just random examples from the lead, which suggests that the whole text needs a good massage. Tony 01:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the criticism, Tony. I've gone in and made the fixes you brought up, and I'll take a closer look at the rest of the text later today to make sure there aren't any other isolated glitches. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Went back and looked over it. I touched up a few things, but per usual, I may be too close to the article to spot any other problems. So please feel free to alert me.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)