Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Brinks Hotel bombing

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009 [1].

1964 Brinks Hotel bombing edit

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!)

A Vietcong bombing in 1964. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Dabs and external links (checker tools), and ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I got mired in problems pretty quickly and I think this should have some solid time with a copyeditor before further examination is possible. Samples from the lead:
    • The first sentence of the lead seems oddly repetitive: "The Brinks Hotel bombing ... was a bomb attack on the Brinks Hotel"
    • "Aimed at a building that housed United States Army officers, the explosion killed two Americans and injured 58 others." A couple problems: first, the dangling modifier (the explosion wasn't aimed.. surely the bomb?), and second, why the prominent mention of Americans killed while the others are relegated to "others"?
    • "Firstly, by attacking an American institution in the core of the heavily guarded capital, it demonstrated ..." The "it" is ambiguous. The only possible subjects you've introduced thus far are the Vietcong commanders, who are not an "it".
    • The "firstly" and "second" statements need parallel structure; they are at odds currently.
    • "The bombing prompted debate within the administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson, with most of his advisors favouring ..." Troublesome "with noun +ing" construction. The whole of the sentence needs work.
--Laser brain (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the Monkey has done a self-copyedit. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More - I've gone through and made some more fixes, and it is looking good. A couple other items I'd like to clear up before supporting:
    • "The pair drove their vehicles into the hotel ..." To me, this reads like they smashed their cars into the hotel. What is the correct meaning? They drove to the hotel, or they drove into a hotel garage or similar? I see later that there was a parking area under the hotel, but perhaps it bears stating here, earlier in the text.
I've reworded it...Drove a vehicle to the entrance normally.... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Despite the clerk's reply that the colonel had left the country, the "major" insisted that he had not, and parked his car in the lot beneath the hotel, before telling his chauffeur to fetch the American with the other vehicle." I found this difficult to follow. Are you saying that the "major" told the clerk that he did these things, or that he left the clerk to do them at this time?
Reworded. The VC and ARVN knew the US officer was gone, but the VC kept on insisting he had an appointment and then parked his car with bomb in the carpark. Then the VC told his partner to go and pick up the officer (a getaway decoy), and the driver drove away. Then he said he was going for dinner (another getaway decoy) and walked out. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images checked and are ok 2 images, both military public domain and both seem fine, Tom B (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With the additional background information, all my questions have been resolved. Thank you for educating me :) Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Comments. Overall, I thought this was a well-done article, but the reaction section is written almost entirely from the American perspective. What was the reaction, if any, in South Vietnam, and particularly in Saigon (especially considering civilians were injured)? Was the US blamed? Did people believe that the Vietcong were involved? Was there any reaction in North Vietnam (although I suspect that information might be difficult to find)? How were the bombers identified? Were they rewarded/punished for their actions? Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added VC radio proclamation taking credit. Added details of a VC conference resolution (meeting was secret). No official reaction in NVN as they officially claimed to not be infilitrating the south at the time (noted in article). It's very typical in Asian countries, especially authoritarian nationalist ones, Vietnam is no different that people will never admit to any mistakes, so in newspapers and political speeches, they will always say that they won every battle, no matter how badly they actually lost. As you can't win a bombing, I wouldn't be suprised if there was no announcement at all by teh government or that the press chose to remain silent. The month before a whole pile of papers were banned by the govt for publicising VC successes...None of the books noted any south Vietnamese reaction...also the day of the bombing, the SV leaders had angrily denounced the US and threatened to expel the ambassador (background added) so maybe they were too busy to pay attention to a small bombing in terms of Viet casualties (5000 public servants inc teachers, nurses etc were usually murdered per year by the VC not in battle but by kidnapping and execution + soldiers etc), the impact of the bombing was mainly to embarrass the US Army. Well the bombers were never caught otherwise they would have been put to death, and probably owned up publicly after 1975 [not stated in the source] and they wouldn't have done a Hamas style suicide type otherwise their family would get put in jail. Karnow was the only person who interviewed the agent, the others just copied him, and he didn't give any other information about it. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other minor issue : Following World War I, the communist-dominated Vietminh - isn't that supposed to be WWII? Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support I think this has the potential to be a very nice article, but at the moment the prose is just not there. Examples below:

  • "was an attack on the hotel of the same name in Saigon" - redundancy, try "was an attack on a hotel in Saigon"
  • "The bomb was targeted at a building" - awkward, perhaps "The bomb was detonated underneath the hotel, which housed"
  • "with two aims in mind" - "two objectives"
  • "However, the elections were cancelled" - doesn't need "however"
  • Capitalise "North" and "South" when referring to the countries
  • "With the Cold War in full-flight" - the correct colloquial term is full-swing, but I suggest using "at its height"
  • The sentences that begin "The building housed . . ." would be better located after ". . . received orders from an intermediary to bomb the Brinks Hotel".
  • "as a ARVN major" - "as an ARVN major"
  • "going to a nearby café for sustenance" - no need for "for sustenance".
  • "the explosion occurred" - "the bomb detonated"
  • "causing a fireball to erupt" - "creating a fireball"
  • "American entertainers such as Bob Hope" - "American entertainers, including Bob Hope,"
  • "Some of our local squabbles will probably disappear in enthusiasm which our action would generate" - Are you sure this quote is correct? It doesn't seem to make sense.
  • "However, at the time, the South Vietnamese government had been unstable" - wrong tense "However, the South Vietnamese government of the time was unstable"
  • "Johnson administration officials concluded that the Vietcong perpetrated the attack only a few days after the bombing" - this seems to (sort of) contradict the previous sentence - do you have nay more information on the investigation? Was this information released?
  • "something that" - "a strategy that"
  • "However, the attack fomented feelings of insecurity" - drop the "however", no paragraph should begin with "however"
  • "This increased the tension between the president and his advisors" - with what result
  • Its not essential, but do you know the names of the officers killed? It would be an interesting extra bit of information (according to [2], the only soldier recorded as dying on this date is Lieutenant Colonel James Hagen, so presumably the other death was from wounds some time later).
There's another guy who died a few weeks later with the same death description, both MACV and a few of the same RIP messages, so I think I identified them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is avery interesting article and once the above are dealt with I'd be happy to lend my support. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all the rest. I'm surprised that Laser brain OKed the prose and another found fault (a first) but it's good to see the stds rising I guess. I fixed the above examples for you but I wonder whether I am capable of finding any more .... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. I'll do a second read through at somepoint today to see if there is anything else and decide on whether I can now support, but I think its likely that I will. The examples of prose problems were all I could find then, not a representative selection, and you seem to have taken care of them all, but I recommend another read through to check for redundancy and odd grammar. Good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments but otherwise excellent and I support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bomb was detonated underneath the hotel" - a bit repetetive, how about "Two Vietcong operatives detonated a car bomb underneath the hotel".
  • "demonstrated the Vietcong's ability to strike in Vietnam" - presumably this is "South Vietnam"?
  • "Secondly, it demonstrated" - did it actually demonstatrate, or was it "intended to demonstrate"?
  • "Vietcong agents who escaped uninjured. One of them," - "who escaped uninjured" and "of them" are redundant and can be removed
Fixed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — YellowMonkey appears to be an inactive user now. I sincerely hope that he'll return to finish this FAC, but reviewers should be aware of this fact. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll volunteer to address the suggestions above and monitor the nomination until we know YM's status. Please give me 24 hours or so, as The Boss will have me fully occupied tonight. --Laser brain (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. EDIT: Struck oppose. Steve T • C Generally well-written, seems well-sourced and comprehensive. I have a few issues, some of which you may disagree with, so feel free to rip me a new one in rebuttal! Comments follow. Steve T • C
    Lead
    • "the explosion killed two American officers and injured approximately 60 military personnel and Vietnamese civilians." This could, if I'm being uncharitable, be interpreted as if to say 60 military personnel died, along with some Vietnamese civilians—but only if one walks into this article expecting clunky prose; perhaps I need to get out of that mindset.
    • "the bombing intended to demonstrate the Vietcong's ability to strike in South Vietnam..." Again, maybe it's me, but shouldn't that read "the bombing was intended" or similar? Otherwise, it sounds like the bombing's intent. Alternatively, recast the sentence to use the active voice ("The Vietcong intended the bombing to...").
    • Any real need to link United States, especially twice so close together (here and in the first section)?
Fixed these, apart from teh linking thing. Link once in the lead and once in the main body, per my personal habits.
  • Background and planning
I nomrally do this. Tony1 (talk · contribs) is ok with it. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "his partner dressed as a South Vietnamese officer..." The next section specifies a major, so perhaps we should be that specific here.
    • "over a period of time" Is this as specific as we can get? If so, consider removal/replacement with something more concise, or eliminating altogether.
    • Same "firstly" and "second" parallel structure requirement that Laser Brain mentioned above.
    • "because they using it"
Fixed the rest/ YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Execution
    • "The pair, one posing as an ARVN major and Xuan as his chauffeur..." Not sure we need this with the mention so close by in the previous section. Perhaps simply working in "were disguised" instead of the full descriptions would be suitable.
    • "Knowing from their intelligence that a certain US colonel had left for home..." I read this on the first pass to mean his "home" in the area, not the United States; only the clarification two sentences later made me backtrack.
    • "factually correct" Necessary?
Maybe. pruned to "correct"
    • Lots of repetitive uses of "the major"; the bomber appears to be unnamed, but perhaps that term (or similar) could be used to refer to him a few times.
    • "and that the American was still in South Vietnam." All redundant; the sentence begins with the clerk's telling the bomber that the colonel has left, following with the bomber's disputing it.
    • "The South Vietnamese government never caught the perpetrators." Doesn't fit in this paragraph, sandwiched between different aspects of the bombing, and perhaps doesn't fit in the section at all.
    • "was currently serving the MACV." "Currently" doesn't fit, considering this happened nearly 45 years ago. Removing the word retains the intended meaning. Also, is "serving the MACV" is missing an "in" or "with" after "serving".
    • "a total of" Almost always redundant.
    • "The injury reports are conflicting. Karnow reported that a total of 58 people (military and civilian) were injured, Mark Moyar reported that 38 American officers were wounded along with 25 Vietnamese civilians, while A. J. Langguth reported that 10 Americans and 43 Vietnamese were injured." With the exception of the wikilinked Moyar, perhaps it should be demonstrated in the text just why we're reporting the opinions of these people.
Done except Karnow who is already intro'd in the first section. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "girders supporting". The gerund requires this to say "girders' supporting" (you wouldn't say "me supporting", but "my supporting"). A lot of people don't like the way this renders; if you don't, then rephrase to avoid either version.
    • Comma required after Mr Hope.
    • "Lawrence J. Quirk reported that [Hope was] unharmed." Makes it sound as if it's Quirk's view that Hope and his troupe were unharmed, rather than fact.
Fixed these YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaction
    • "of the time" Redundant.
    • "as numerous military juntas ruled for a brief period before being deposed by another." Does this mean that the government at the time was merely the most recent in a line of juntas? It's unclear. Also, should that be "brief periods" [that each ruled for]? Unless that's the intent (several juntas in one brief period).
clarified YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "who felt that the officers' disputes were derailing the war effort." Which officers? The junta's? It becomes slightly clearer in subsequent sentences, but be careful of too much elegant variation, which can introduce ambiguities such as these; the article is full of creative synonyms that are perhaps unnecessary, especially in the preceding section when referring to the bombers.
    • "General William Westmoreland, the US army head in South Vietnam, Taylor, and other senior US officers in Saigon..." Makes it sound as if "the US army head in South Vietnam" was a separate person to Westmoreland.
    • "the Vietcong having" Gerund → "the Vietcong's having".
    • "Johnson administration officials finally concluded that the Vietcong perpetrated the attack four days after the bombing." Time-travelling Vietcong. Suggest re-order ("...officials concluded four days after...")
    • "international opinion towards an American air strike would be that Johnson was "trying to shoot its way out of an internal [South Vietnamese] political crisis". Johnson is referred to as "its" here. Square bracket to [his], or reword to say the Johnson administration.
    • "Johnson was recorded in administration archives as saying to Taylor that..." I'm not sure all this is relevant. Why not simply say that "Johnson told Taylor that"? Unless his words in the archives are contentious in some way?
    • I altered a couple myself, but there are still several instances of BrE variation spelling throughout.
  • Otherwise, it is a very interesting read, and while that might look a long list of issues, I'm sure there isn't anything that will take a long time to resolve. All the best, Steve T • C 23:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the rest YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Hope you don't mind, but I've made further language and MOS tweaks that I discovered on my second pass (it was quicker than listing them here), and you've addressed my other concerns more than satisfactorily. Nice work, Steve T • C 10:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1964_Brinks_Hotel_bombing&oldid=1138453007"