Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnam/archive1

Vietnam

Hi - I request the advice and help of all in making this a featured article. Rama's arrow 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update the information. Much of the information from your sources are from the mid-1990s. Vietnam has changed rapidly during the last decade. DHN 02:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very interesting and some good information about the spelling of Viet Nam, the country. I'm trying to determine the origin of the spelling: Viet = People, Nam= of the south, meaning the Vietnamese were not the people of the north, the Chinese.

The one-word spelling seems to have come from Western journalists sending telex messages. Charged by the word, Dien Bien Phu became expensive, as did Ha Noi, Sai Gon, Da Nang, etc. To cut costs they made one word, the style manuals picked that up, and it stuck.

The Vietnamese are a humble people and would never tell a foreigner their spelling was incorrect. When they use the name "Vietnam" as mention for Nam Dan, it's simply a case of the Vietnamese knowing Westerners (mostly Americans) wouldn't recognize or understand the proper spelling, so they continue the myth and continue to make money.

For myself, I'm using the term Viet Nam, as the older people would. Younger Vietnamese might use one word, and the Viet-kieu (overseas Vietnamese) have been raised with the single word version. That's all they know.

Using Viet Nam recognizes the original and local spelling, and begins to offer Americans a new look at healing from the American war. The one-word name is associated with the war, and the national psyche immediately interprets that name into emotional issues. It’s like a case of national PTSD. I believe with a new (which luckily happens to be correct) spelling, Americans of the war era will develop new emotions and appreciation for the country, and slowly leave the war. With a new war in our lives, we need healing from the past in order to better cope with the trauma and lies of the present. Thanks for any discussion.

Thanks,

Ted

I would recommend

Much more detailed citations throughout the article, especially in the areas most likely to be controversial, such as whether the Nam Viet was independent or Chinese-ruled, 20th century history, political structure. Also cite a source for specific facts such as the numbers in the Geography and Climate section, and in the Economy section.
More detail on the organization of the communist party in the section on government and politics.
Watch out for weasel words, for example "perhaps one of the most important".
Watch out for duplicated links. For example, Ho Chi Minh City and Saigon are both wikilinked in the subdivisions section, but Saigon redirects to Ho Chi Minh City.
Cite statements like "this has amazed many people."
The Culture section needs copyediting for grammar.
One long paragraph in the Culture section could be split up into multiple smaller ones,

and links to several sub-articles (Vietnamese cuisine, Vietnamese music, etc.)

In the culture section, is more discussion of the various ethnic groups contributions appropriate?
Does the overseas Vietnamese community deserve a lengthier discussion?

The Photon 02:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 03:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]