Talk:Commercial Import Program

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Commercial Import Program/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: No dabs found

Linkrot: No dead links found

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The program was created in January 1955,[1] immediately upon the transfer of its remaining direct influence over the State of Vietnam to the chief of state, former Emperor Bao Dai and his Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem. What does this mean? Can this be rephrased for clarity? The meaning is not clear.  Done

   The method used for the program was import subsidisation. As part of the program, the United Stated pumped US dollars into the treasury of the South Vietnamese government, and the regime sold the US dollars to South Vietnamese businesspeople who had licenses that they could use to import American goods. Simpler and clear would be something like, "The program used import subsidies to pump US dollars into the South Vietnamese treasury. The regimes sold these dollars to business people who held licences to import American goods." {[done}}

   The businessmen mostly used the import subsidies to purchase consumer goods such as water boats... "water boats"? What other type are there?  Done

   The word program is overused. Please find alternatives.  Done

   One of the political impacts of the injecting... Clumsy  Done

   As the program allowed those with licenses to import goods at half price, it was regarded as effectively a guarantee of business success, regardless of entrepreneurial skill, and as such was highly-prized. Really this prose is very poor. Please get someone to copy-edit thoroughly.  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Assume good faith for all off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I feel that the history section needs a little bit more context about the two states that existed in Vietnam, also some sourced comments about the fact that this was a deliberate US program to counter communism (I assume taht this was the real inetent). Done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One image used

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As it stands the article not reasonably well written. It needs a thorough copy-edit and it needs a little more context for those unfamiliar with the post second world war history of Vietanme and its role in US geo-politics. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I think my points have been addressed. Happy to pass as worthy of GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Did the specific problems, word variety, and will do the background with FRA/USA, 2 VNs, and a general ce run YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Should we subject this article to peer review?Lbertolotti (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)