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

Reviewer: Ian Rose ( talk) 08:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC) reply

This massive article looks like it could be destined for MilHist A-Class and even FA, so looking fwd to offering the first outside opinion on it. Will take some time to get through it but hopefully get cmts in by the w/e... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks Ian. Anotherclown ( talk) 23:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Technical review

• No dab links
• No external link issues
• Most images don't have alt text -- might like to add it for all, though it's not a specific requirement.
  • Added alt text now. Anotherclown ( talk) 01:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Lead

• Heh, you picked up the one suggestion I was going to add here following my little copyedit, namely to spell out "AO" on first occurrence, so no action req'd... ;-)

Background

• Commanded by Brigadier Ron Hughes, the Australians had continued to operate independently within Phuoc Tuy, and while the war had become a series of big unit search-and-destroy operations in a war of attrition for the Americans, they had largely pursued their own counter-insurgency campaign despite the differences between Australian and American methods at times producing friction between the allies. -- There's a lot of info in this sentence and it's a bit confusing. First off, can we say "large-scale" instead of "big unit"? Second, not sure who "they" are in "they had largely pursued..." -- best be explicit and, if necessary, split the sentence in two for clarity.
  • Agreed, I have reworded it a bit now. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• ...the Minh Dam Secret Zone located in the Long Hail hills... -- Do you mean "Long Hais", as appears in the next sentences?
  • Yep that was a typo, fixed now. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Prelude

• ...the most costly week of the American war. -- For the Americans? Or for both sides?
  • Reworded. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• ...1ATF would again be used... -- From this point on in the relevant paragraph there's a lot of "would"s. This sounds like you mean "it was planned that..." but then we seem to get into the action proper (The main deployment began on 25 April...) and yet there are still more "would"s after that. Can you just check this section and see that where something was planned it's labelled as such, and where it actually took place, that's also clear?
  • Agreed, I have made some changes here now. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• ...consolidated into a fire support base... --- Not quite sure what this means. Do we mean the battalion was spread out and then it regrouped at the FSB? If so, "regrouped at a fire support base" sounds better to me. If you mean "retired to" the FSB, say that. If you mean something else, let's discuss...
  • Hmm, my sources don't make this clear either so I have reworded it. Hopefully that works. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• ...on 12 May the Australians would be again redeployed... -- Similar to earlier comment; could it just as easily be "on 12 May the Australians were again redeployed"?
  • I see what you mean here and have made some changes. That said in this section (i.e. the Prelude) I am trying to talk about the plan (so future tense I think is appropriate), and then in the Battle section talk about what happened. I hope this is clearer now from the changes I have now made. Please let me know. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• 1ATF would move with its headquarters... -- Again, this paragraph is full of the "would"s; this term/tense should be used sparingly, really only if you have to refer to a future event to give it proper context.
  • As above. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Going to pause for breath at this point, before we get to the battle proper -- feel free to start responding to the above. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• No worries. Thanks for your work to date. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Battle
Hopefully my copyedits haven't alter meaning too badly; other comments/queries:

• ...the battery had fired a mission to the north... -- Do you mean fired "on" a mission? Or fired a "salvo"?
  • a 'fire mission' is a generic artillery term used to refer to firing on a target so I believe this is correct here. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Not quite sure what "opened fire over open sights" means...
  • Added a wikilink to open sights. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• You often use the word "gun" (for "big gun" obviously) more than once in sentences. I see you've also used "emplacement" for "gun position" a bit to mix it up -- can "artillery" be safely used to substitute for "gun" occasionally?
  • I'll have a look and see what I can do. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Reword gun to artillery in a couple of places where it was appropriate. Good idea. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Not sure what "integral fires from 102 Field Battery" means...
  • 'integral' describes a support relationship between the battery and the infantry battalion, in this case 102 Field Battery was assigned in direct support to 1RAR so I have reworded a little and added a wikilink to explain this. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Images

• All maps and US-supplied photos appear appropriately licensed.
• The FURs appear as reasonable as possible and I have no desire to remove them as I think they do add to the article, but I doubt you'd get away with so many at FAC.
  • Agree. To be honest I always intended to take this no further than GA for that very reason. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

More to come soon... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 03:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Cheers Ian. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Battle (cont'd)

• Just occurred to me, is there anything in the sources about the naming convention the Aussies appear to have used for the FSBs and AOs, namely beaches / beachside suburbs? If so, might be worth highlighting it in Background or Prelude, and linking the FSB names to the relevant WP articles...
  • From a quick scan there doesn't appear to be anything in the references I'm afraid, interesting idea though. Will have a bit more of a look. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Dunstan then directed the clearance of the bunker system... -- As this is a new subsection we need it a bit more self-contained so "then" should be removed. If you feel you need to add a little bit of (re-)establishing info--even just date and time--to compensate, pls do so.
  • Yes I see what you mean, I have reworded and added the date. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• You use "No. 2 Squadron" for the Canberra image caption but don't mention the unit in the text at that point. Assuming your sources have it (you and I know it could only have been 2SQN RAAF but the average reader won't), might be good to add the squadron/link in the text.
  • Good idea, not sure why I neglected to do this actually. Done now. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• ...artillery and mortar fire engaged depth targets. -- Not obvious what a "depth target" is.
  • A depth target is a target behind the enemy's forward line of own troops, i.e. usually assault forces in assembly areas, reserves or artillery batteries etc. I have wikilink 'depth' target now to the appropriate section in the Artillery article, so hopefully this is adequate. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Do you mean "search-and-clear" or "sweep-and-clear" (or "search-and-destroy")? If the first one's definitely correct, no prob but hadn't heard it before... ;-)
  • Yes "search-and-clear" is what the reference says. That said I'm pretty sure the exact meaning is probably only known to infantrymen however... Anotherclown ( talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Sources

• The Western sources look good but I wonder if there are other Vietnamese ones that might be consulted. This isn't such a big deal if you don't intend to go on to ACR/FAC, however (a shame, but I understand your reasons).
  • I agree this is an issue as I really only have a minor reference to the PAVN official history by Van Thai (which is AFAIK the primary Vietnamese work available in English). That said IMO this is reflective of the literature available (or not available for that matter). Unfortunately Van Thai doesn't cover the battles at Coral and Balmoral at all and the relevant chapter mainly focuses on the operations in Saigon and at Khe San, which were probably of far more importance to the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong at rate. Over time I intend to continue to look for more Vietnamese sources and add them as they become available though (no doubt more will be translated in time). Anotherclown ( talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Summary

• This was a massive undertaking, probably the most detailed battle article I've seen, but never boring or over the top -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • P.S. Just noticed you italicise Operation Toan Thang I in some places but not others -- should be consistent (I'd have thought plain). Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Added for consistency. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Thank you for your work so far on this Ian, I'm most greatful for your copy-editting and suggestions which have been most helpful (and extensive). Anotherclown ( talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Okay mate, thanks for your patience -- all done now, happy to pass as GA... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • P.S. Told you I'd finish it before the end of the year... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Indeed (an hour and a half to spare where I live)! Thanks again. Anotherclown ( talk) 12:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply