Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/State of Vietnam referendum, 1955

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 00:03, 17 April 2008.

[edit] State of Vietnam referendum, 1955

This article is about the rigged referendum held by Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem in order to depose Emperor Bao Dai and establish the Republic of Vietnam, commonly known as South Vietnam. This article is very short. The reasons for this are that BAo Dai was living overseas in France, and couldn't be bothered running the country, so there was basically no attempt on his part to campaign. Secondly, campaigning for Bao Dai was banned anyway, so there was never any real election campaign or policy debates. In the end, the result was faked (133% in Saigon), so since there weren't any proper results, the historians didn't bother to analyse the referendum much at all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Shouldn't the Jacobs book be in a references section if its used as a reference?

Other than a small typo I fixed, everything looks good on sources. No links so they all work. I'll try to get back later and do a full read to support or oppose. (I highly doubt I'll be opposing, it looked pretty good from my quick glance). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support although I have a few picky things I noticed

• U.S. or US? You use the first in the first paragraph of Background, the second in the second paragraph.
• Voting and aftermath section, the second paragraph, first sentence seems a bit run on and awkward to me. "The elections were held with Diem's brother and confidant Ngo Dinh Nhu, the leader of the family's Can Lao Party, which supplied Diem's electoral base, organising and supervising the election." The subject and verb are separated by two explanatory phrases, it might flow better worded something like "The elections were organised and supervised by Diem's brother and confidant Ngo Dinh Nhu, who was the leader of the family's Can Lao Party, which supplied Diem's electoral base.
• Picky, but in the second paragraph of Voting, you should probably go with 450,000 instead of 450 thousand for consistency with the number right before it.

Very nice article on an important but little recorded subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tweaked or clarified these things, except I don't think the lead is the approrpaite place to detail the long history of animosity between Diem and Bao Dai. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment—The prose is not quite of the required professional standard, and needs someone fresh to it to run through carefully. I picked up the following examples at random at the top, to indicate the need for the whole text to be polished.

• "He accumulated high tallies in excess of 90% even in rural regions where voting was prevented by opposition groups." Comma after "90%". Logic problem—is the figure a percentage of eligible voters (in which case it makes sense), or actual votes (in which case, it doesn't add up if the opposition suppressed the turn-out). You'll need to specify. Some readers, like me, come from jurisdictions in which voting is mandatory, and almost everyone toes the line. Others don't; further confusion.
• "police went from door to door warning people to vote"—warning is usually associated with "don't". Here, would "encouraging" be better?
• "After a period of three hundred days during which free passage between both halves of Vietnam was allowed, the border was closed on 11 October 1954."—Nope, put the time-phrase—either "The border was closed on 11 October 1954," or just "On 11 October 1954," at the start, followed by a comma.
• "During the free movement period"—bit awkward; why not "During those 300 days," to make the text more cohesive? TONY (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Another round of copyedit is being done, in addition to these specific points. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. A well-written and informative article on a little-known (to me, anyway) subject. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Very nice article. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. I couldn't see anything wrong with the article. Seems neutral and well-written. Images are all free. No reason to oppose. Well done. Woody (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.