Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. I usually like to give general suggestions first, and then give more specific suggestions once they are addressed. Here are some initial suggestions:

According to WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have a lead that is three or four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
Linking dates is no longer required, and a lot of reviewers (especially for WP:FAC) ask them to be de-linked.
Be consistent on how dates are written. In the infobox they are written "day-month" and in the prose they are written "month-day".
There is a good deal of uncited text. There should be at least a citation in every paragraph.
This last question may be because of my naivete about government goings on, but how could unpublished government documents be sources? Aren't they, um, unpublished?

The lack of in-line citations is the biggest problem I see. I'll put the article on hold for seven days to allow for these changes. Nikki♥311 22:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The seven days are up, so I am failing the article due to a lack of response. Nikki♥311 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the question above about unpublished documents: A lot of documents that have never been published can be found (and xeroxed) in the National Archives. Ed Moise (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead expanded
Dates delinked
Dates appeared consistent when I edited, someone else actioned
Text appears adequately cited (claiming expert opinion: historian)
Unpublished government documents are sources: archives (claiming expert opinion: historian)

I believe the criteria raised in the review have been addressed fully. Raising rating to "A" class. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]