Talk:10th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam

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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

10th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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
December 10, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
April 28, 2013	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:10th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC) RESERVED: For future review at the hands of me. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and Infobox[edit]

These are fine. Now, on to the substance's review...

Preparations[edit]

"...subcommittee of the 9th Central Committee, which was, in all likelihood, chaired by General Secretary Nông Đức Mạnh." Can you confirm that he chaired this committee?

Its uncertain who chaired it, but it is most probably chaired by Nong Duc Manh.. THis is sourced already... --TIAYN (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done "...based their campaign on the fact that is son-in-law had worked at PMU 18 Department..." "...that his son...", you mean?
Everything else is good.

Delegates[edit]

This section is fine.

The Congress and the 1st plenum[edit]

Good here as well.

Policy enactments[edit]

Solid here as well. Pass.

Democratization[edit]

Pass here.

Acknowledgements[edit]

Very nice section here, but I will need some prose from some sovereign states, not just the socialist parties of the world. I am sure countries like France, the UK, and Australia had to have commented.

Nope, not as I know off.... Western democratic countries don't usually support or acknowledge communist congresses (they didn't even do it during the hey-days of the Soviet Union). --TIAYN (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit about Hu Jintao if that helps... --TIAYN (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

I learned a good deal about Vietnam reviewing this one, so thanks! As per the norm, when these issues are mitigated, I can pass this fine article. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:10th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are numerous prose issues; nothing major, but they exist nonetheless. For instance "The preparations for the 10th Congress was led by the Personnel Appointments subcommittee of the 9th Central Committee, which was, in all likelihood..." illustrates multiple issues; "was" should be "were", and the "which was, in all likelihood" would read better as "was probably". Another prose issue that jumps out as I read the text is "This was a radical change; this was the first time competing..." which is a little repetitive.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section could do with some further work; for instance, it does not link to either Vietnam or to the Communist Party of Vietnam. For that reason I am unclear that it complies entirely with the manual of style guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There is a minor POV issue here with "the nomination list recommended by Personnel Appointments subcommittee was improved..." (the latter word is innately POV; not everyone would agree that it was an improvement).
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	We could use images such as this (File:Nong Duc Manh 2010.jpg), so why don't we ?
	7. Overall assessment.	In general, this is a fine piece of work, and the editor(s) responsible deserve to be congratulated. No offence is intended by my decision to reassess it within 6 months of it achieving GA status, but there are clearly a few issues that require attention. Once these are fixed, I would be happy to see it retain its status; if they are not then I fear that it might require demotion. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Right, this is now a pass. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --TIAYN (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]