Talk:Hue Vesak shootings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Hue Vesak shootings has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on August 30, 2007.
August 31, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Hue Vesak shootings, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.


[edit] GA Nomination

Very well written article and congratulations to the contributors. It was a very interesting and informative read and seemed to pass the GA criteria, leading me to logically pass it as a GA. Most the article barring the prelude was written to an informative level and was fairly neutral. There are some issues with the prelude section of the article:

  1. 1st paragraph in prelude is rather heavy on its allegations of pro-Catholic bias in the government. These are all very well cited, but the prose overloads these facts on the reader. It would be perhaps send info about it Religious persecution in Vietnam and cut down on the details here.
  2. "A 1958 rarely enforced law known as Decree Number 10 was invoked on May 7 to prohibit the display of religious flags." Confusing prose there.
  3. Would it be possible to find any information on why Decree Number 10 was invoked. It doesn't really present the PoV of the government, implying that the only reasoning was blatant dislike of Buddhists displaying their religion.

In general, it seems that the article is heavily sympathetic towards the Buddhists who were persecuted and, while this is natural and perhaps impossible not to have as an undertone in the article, it would perhaps be better to present the point of view of some of the Catholic minority and how they saw the Buddhist crisis etc. Maybe that's not within the scope of the article but it's just an idea the main contributors could dwell on. It's not too major and doesn't stop the article from being GA.

Also, maybe it would be better to attribute your opinions to the sources. As sometimes whole paragraphs of opinions remained unattributed, even with one reference at the end, original research may seep into the article. AbA 06:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: