Talk:Tet offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base

Request Merge

• Template placed by User:A bicyclette, but without a case made; I suppose that the point is whether of not the attacks have notability independent of Battle of Saigon (1968). Klbrain (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose for same reasons as for Tet Offensive attacks on Bien Hoa and Long Binh, distinct battle warranting its own page. Merger would result in one overlong page. This is part of attempts by User:A bicyclette (currently blocked indef) to minimise US/ARVN victories and done in retaliation for my AfD of Battle of the Slopes an unnecessary fork of Battle of Dak To. Mztourist (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tet Offensive attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 12:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for leaving this so long. I forgot that it was on my to do list.

• "relegating them to pacification fighting the war in the villages with the VC" I don't think that this is grammatical. Could you relook at it?
  • I added a comma, but this formulation copies that used on Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy

I thought that it would need more, but if you replace the comma with a colon it does the trick. (You may want to consider a similar change there then.)

• "and so only the only threat came from small-scale guerilla attacks"?
  • Not sure what you're asking here, the U.S. view was that no large units would be able to get close to the base, so they only needed to defend against small sapper attacks like in 1966

Me neither. I seemed to have omitted a comment! What I should have said was 'Delete the first "only"'.

• "machine gun armed gun jeeps" gun twice in three words jars. Is there a different way of phrasing it?
• "flightline": could you link it to something appropriate; or give an inline or footnoted explanation.
• "COSVN" should be in full.
• "placed satchel charges under RVNAF C-47s damaging 14 of them" and "no material damage was done to the base". I see that you are technically correct, but it comes across as a bit weasel wordy.
  • I changed material to "only superficial". The point is that the base wasn't put out of action, no major facilities like POL were destroyed and any aircraft losses were easily replaced

I understand, and as I said, technically you are correct, but let us avoid possible accusations of being US PoV pushers.

Looking good. Little for me to pick at. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Link 0.50 cal machine guns.
  • its there in the 3rd para of Counter-attack

So it is. Apologies.

• Can " "Wonderarch" roofed aircraft shelters" be linked to Hardened aircraft shelter?
• Tregaskis needs an OCLC - 433210313.

Mztourist: Great work. Not a lot for me to do. Tidy up the bits above and we're there. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• All done, other than per comments above. best regards Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine writing and apologies again for overlooking it. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Gog, much appreciated. Mztourist (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Gen. Carl Bender somehow has no article

Obviously needs one, also the lead section needs a rewrite. 5.173.41.12 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to write an article about him. The page does not need a rewrite, it is already rated as a Good Article. You need to stop drive by tagging of pages. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)