The date formatting is very inconsistent - some mdy with comma, one without, one in cite dmy, two in cites autoformatted; should be consistent, whatever it is.
'Protestor' is listed as an alternate spelling in some dictionaries, not others. Another editor has changed two of the occurrences to 'protester' but not changed the rest. I don't care which it is, but it should be consistent.
There's a lot of text beginning with "and in a report to the embassy noted ..." that isn't cited clearly. In the last sentence, who made the US threat to Diem? Helble, someone else in the State Dept, or what? Or should the last sentence be "... the United States should threaten to ..." meaning we're still describing Helble's thinking?
Who ordered the use of chemicals within ARVN? Someone on the spot, or higher up? Was this a planned response, or improvised on the spot? This is the major question the article leaves hanging, unless I missed it.
There's an imbalance between the 'Background' and the 'Aftermath' part of the last section; the former is far longer than the latter. In articles like this I'm never sure how much background should be supplied versus people getting by reading other articles; what's here is well written, but it's about the same size as the incident itself. I won't hold the GA on this point, though. But if there's any more that can be said about the effect of the incident, that should be added. And maybe a brief recap of what happened afterward, leading to the coup.
The dates of the "An investigation attempted to exonerate ..." and "A further commission chaired by ..." should be added. I can't tell if these happened a few days after, or weeks or months or whatever.
OK, looks good, I made a few further fixups and have passed it. Referring to the above point, I put it in
WP:GA#Asian history, which is where another Buddhist crisis article
Hue Vesak shootings is, and where
Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm is in the FA list (History, not Warfare). This article is really part of a sequence with them, and its significance is much more in the history of the time than in the possibly accidental deployment of a chemical weapon. If this incident were more famous as an example of chemical warfare, such as say the
Halabja poison gas attack, then the military classification would be warranted.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
12:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)reply