Talk:Battle of Loc Ninh

	Battle of Loc Ninh has been listed as one of the Warfare 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 March 21, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 7, 2022.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force North American military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force United States military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Vietnam Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why is the article about the First Battle of Loc Ninh not mentioned here? That shouldn't be a redlink, of course--if it still is, fix it to link to its article, too. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see below

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Battle of Loc Ninh/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Well done, no problems.
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .	I have two quibbles: It is difficult in some instances to keep track of whether the individual and unit names are NVA or ARVN, in other words, who is doing what to whom. I will make some comments in the article where I think further clarification may help. The article merits a short section addressing the massive failure of the ARVN/US Advisers to take action on the plentiful intelligence available, if such information is available. The South Vietnamese Army's failure to act on this intelligence appears to be a major element of the NVA's success. I won't hold the article up GA for these issue though. These are probably GA level issues.
	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 .	Appropriate references provided.
	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).	Good quantity of references at appropriate points, although I am unable to verify the quality or accuracy of the individual citations in books that are not digitally available.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Very good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Well done.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good, neutral tone throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very stable.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Very good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Ready for GA, with suggested improvements post-GA suggested.

;

In order to distinguish this article from that about the First Battle of Loc Ninh, I have added a hatnote. Will interested editors also note that on that article's Talk Page I have raised concerns highlighted recently by a veteran of that conflict that that page is misnamed, as there was an earlier battle on 11 June 1966 which could claim that title. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]