Template:Did you know nominations/Campaign Thoan Thang
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Campaign Thoan Thang[edit]
- ... that Campaign Thoan Thang was both the first wet season offensive and the first use of armor in the Laotian Civil War?
- ALT1:... that Campaign Thoan Thang was both the first use of armor and the first wet season offensive in the Laotian Civil War?
- ALT2:... that Campaign Thoan Thang was both the first use of tanks and the first wet season offensive in the Laotian Civil War?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Alvin "Shipwreck" Kelly
- Comment: 1969 was a decisive year in the Laotian Civil War, just as it was "next door" in the Vietnam War. With the Royal Lao Government trying to evict Vietnamese invaders from the strategic Plain of Jars, there were a series of attacks and counterattacks. One of these was Campaign Thoan Thang, where the Vietnamese turned loose tanks on the Hmong irregulars (sometimes referred to as "Iron Age guerrillas"). Too bad I can't figure out how to nominate the graphic along the article, or I would affix it and ask for the leadoff slot using ALT1.
Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 03:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC).
The length is fine, and the date of article creation is likewise problem-free. Also, the copyvio check came back fine. However, neither points in the hook (the uniqueness of a wet season offensive or the first use of armor) are directly cited. Could you please cite each of those facts, if possible? Also, I would suggest removing the piped wikilink for PT-76, as the use of the word "armor" is quite ambiguous, and the fact that it links to an article about a specific tank strikes me as an example of WP:EASTEREGG.-RHM22 (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Rewrite should address your hook citing concerns.
- And given that the PT-76 link is in close proximity of a photo of said tank, I don't see how you can claim it is a link that must be clicked to be understood. Also, I am puzzled why you object to the use of the military term "armor". Please give both of these objections a rethink.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Rewrite should address your hook citing concerns.
Ok, the references look fine now and the article checks out. However, I still suggest rewording the hook (I will provide an ALT suggestion above). I don't have any problem with using the word "armor" in the article, and piping to the PT-76 tank, but I don't think it's a good idea to use that in the hook. There are no photos there to suggest what "armor" might mean, and there are a few possible meanings, even within the context of military usage (a tank, a group of tanks, body armor, etc.). Anyway, I don't see it as a big deal; it's just a suggestion to avoid some ambiguity in the DYK section.-RHM22 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't realize you were referring to the hook when you wrote the above, or I would have subbed "tank" for "armor".Georgejdorner (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
