Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:47, 7 June 2008 [1].

[edit] Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang

An article about the Vietnamese Nationalist Party that was active mainly in the early 20th century. Best known for the failed Yen Bai mutiny that attempted to establish a general uprising and independence. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. Links checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - bad prose, I often find the same words. --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Can't you at least post a few examples to give the nominator a better idea of what you are objecting to? Gary King (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There are 100 (!!) "VNQDDs"!! --mojska dimmela 19:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No, there are 82 and given that VNQDD is the subject of the article, this is to be expected.GrahamColmTalk 20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support for an engaging, well-written and interesting contribution to the project.

Issues resolved GrahamColmTalk 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Could we get some more information about the role of the VNQDD's role in post-independence politics? You state that the party is still respected as Vietnam's leading anti-communist organisation, but there isn't any mention of their current activities. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Seconded. Post-1954 activities barely mentioned in article. DHN (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I've included everything from Hammer, both of them, unless you want me to explain the 1962 bombing in full detail or the 1960 coup. Because the coup trial isn't really considered to be a big deal (trumped up by Diem) and the bombing was more ad-hoc rather than centrally organised. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[3] This is a sample history page. Obviously post-1954, the VNQDD had no army left to do much, whereas in the 1930s-40s they were the 1st-2nd largest group, which is why they aren't much of a factor in the history textbooks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could something be said about the so-called "Affair on On Nhu Hau Street"? It appears that the Viet Minh consider it an important case leading to VNQDD's downfall and seemed to have changed some minds (Huynh Thuc Khang) about the role of VNQDD in post-1945 Vietnam. DHN (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'll look in Hammer again but I thought I went to the index and included everything under teh VNQDD search. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: An observation: the articles has some 20 redlinks. Isn't it too many for an FA? Arman (Talk) 04:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Redlinks aren't part of the FA criteria. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, red links are not a bad thing; they are to encourage others to write the articles, and they are a natural and desired part of Wiki articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support; the article seems to me to meet all aspects of the criteria, and there is nothing actionable above that is cause of concern. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Resp. to Sandy: yes, but not too many red links, please. There's a point beyond which they degrade the appearance and readability of an article. There's a requirement for a professional standards of formatting.

Changing to weak opposeSupport Diff since my last comment; nice work.—It would be good to have a thorough copy-editor sift through to ensure that all of the sentences are properly constructed, and the weed out the few remaining obvious glitches. These problems are from the lead, except for the last one, which came very easily from straying into the body of the article.

  • "Beginning in the 1928, the VNQDD began to generate attention ..."—the? How did that happen, and right at the top? "Attract", not "generate".
  • "The mutiny was quickly put down and the retribution was heavy."—the two ideas are very interdependent, yes? "The mutiny was quickly put down, with heavy retribution."? "Along with other leading figures, Hoc was captured and executed."—Reverse the order of the phrases.
  • "Ho soon went back on his word and purged the VNQDD as his communist-dominated Vietminh soon became unchallenged as the dominant anti-colonial militant organisation."—Is the first "as" a because or a while? I really can't tell, and it's a good reason to avoid "as" in that context. Two of them in one sentence is one too many, in any case.
  • "The remnants of the VNQDD fled to the anti-communist south, where they remained until the Fall of Saigon in 1975, which saw the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule." Again, the way the ideas are integrated into a sentence is an issue. Try this: "The remnants of the VNQDD fled to the anti-communist south, where they remained until the Fall of Saigon in 1975 and the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule."
  • "The French colonial authorities were aware of the real purpose of the business and put it under surveillance, without taking further action." Where would the comma be better located? TONY (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Update These have been fixed and Nishkid is doing another review. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tentative support per Tony, but also depending on whether more refs are added. It's always good for a FA to have as many refs as possible, so that nothing can be questioned. A sign of quality as a well-sourced article. Also, would the title include the Vietnamese spelling as well? Khoikhoi 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Update If there was only one ref for a paragraph that was because it all came from that ref. I tend to ref anything. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Spot-check by request: "Money was needed to set up a commercial enterprise, which would be used as a cover for the revolutionaries to meet and plot, as well as and for raising funds . As such, a; for this purpose, hotel-restaurant named the Vietnam Hotel was opened in September 1928."
  • As plain as possible, please: "The first notable reorganisation of the VNQDD took place was in December"
  • Try to avoid the normally idle "some", and there's confusion as to whether the "scholar-gentry" were part of the landlord and wealthy peasant set: "There were some landlords and wealthy peasants among the membership, but few were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank." --> "Among the membership were landlords and wealthy peasants, but few members were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank.

This is one paragraph taken at random from the middle. Needs a good copy-editor to mould into the required professional-standard prose. TONY (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. The prose is decidedly uneven, and often very choppy; it's not always clear how one sentence leads to the next. I've done a bit of copy-editing, but more would be much appreciated. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've now done some more copy-editing, and hope that I've managed to improve the prose. The article's pretty close, I think. I can't really speak to comprehensiveness; the sources are fairly limited in number (are there not more articles available?), and a couple are a little old, but generally they appear solid enough. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hammer and Duiker are still the standards for the French era. The French era doesn't get much attention unfortunately for us. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Ruhrfisch Comments All of my concerns have been addressed and I think the article is interesting and well-written. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, great work as always --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Comment. Leaning toward supporting—I fixed a few issues as I was reading but one thing confused me. In the "Formation" heading you state that the VNQDD mostly consisted of teachers, government employees, and non-commissioned officers but few workers or peasants. In the "Initial activities" heading, you write that French intelligence had the members as students, merchants, and bureaucrats. You then outright state that the group included landlords and peasants. These seem at odds with each other.
    • Are you trying to illustrate that the French had their facts wrong?
Well they were from the same book, but the author didn't explicitly designate the intelligence as being wrong, although he made a statement that is not in accordance with the intelligence. So I htink implicitly yes, although I am not going to make it explicit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Are we supposed to assume that what the intelligence said was correct?
Per above, simply as their analysis, I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Is the second statement after the intelligence statement ("Among the membership were landlords and wealthy peasants, but few members were of scholar-gentry (mandarin) rank.") supposed to be attributed to the intelligence report also?
I did this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Additional comment - question that needs further explanation in the text: "The French reacted to the VNQDD's first major attack by apprehending all the party members they could find ..." How did the French determine that the VNQDD was responsible? --Laser brain (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I clarified that they just attributed it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.