Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on for review. Thanks for improving this as part of Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon! Apologies it took so long for a review to materialise. Per my usual reviewing style, I'll give section-by-section comments, followed by a check against the GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking her up Grnrchst I appreciate your thoughtful review and will work through the comments. SusunW (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Early life and education[edit]

• Could you add a comma or two to the first sentence to break it up a bit?

• done SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be worth making it doubly clear that he missed out on his university education and was sent to rural areas because he was indigenous. This could be done by rearranging the sentence slightly, so the explanation of "as he was an indigenous Vietnamese" comes after him qualifying for university; and adding an "instead" to "he was sent [...]", so "he was instead sent [...]".

• done SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• "Well-to-do" strikes me as a bit euphemistic. Consider a clearer synonym.

• done SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider adding a piped link to French Indochina in World War II.

• done SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [10] Can't find text here about her father fleeing to South Vietnam, although it does mention he was the High Commissioner for Refugees in South Vietnam. Is this citation placed correctly? Or should it come after "and served as a government minister."?

• Good catch, and yes, moved it. SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, is the detail about Vân's father fleeing the North and serving as a Southern minister strictly relevant to her own biography?

• I think it gives necessary context. He didn't one day just decide to relocate the family to Saigon, he was forced to flee. (Ironically, the refugee becomes a minister for other refugees.) He was clearly giving support to Vân and his other children (he sent them abroad in the first place, and then sent other family there to help her when her husband had to return to Vietnam) and it explains why, when each of the family returned they did not go back to Hanoi, but instead went to Saigon. SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, thanks for the explanation. Absolutely keep it in then. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early career (1959–1963)[edit]

• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• This is a rather long run-on sentence at the end of the paragraph. Consider breaking it up.

• done SusunW (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What does Diem being assassinated have to do with Vân establishing the Comparative Law Institute? This being together in the same sentence implies a connection, but I don't see it here.

• I'm confused? She was an advisor to him, he died; one cannot work in an administration that doesn't exist anymore. She needed another job because he died. The connection seems clear to me, sorry. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah got it. Think I just didn't make that connection when reading, it's fine :') --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [15] Verified.

Activism (1964–1974)[edit]

• "Vân's fluency in English and French led to her being invited [...]" Consider "As Vân was fluent in English and French, she was invited [...]"

• done SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ignoring her advice and proceeding with the bombing raids forced Vân to become [...]" Consider "They ignored her advice and proceeded with the bombing raids, which turned Vân into [...]" or something similar. Mainly I'm taking issue with the word "forced", which I think implies a lack of agency on her part in this decision.

• Changed forced to led. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "American imperialists" Might be worth putting this in quotes, just to make clear that this is the opinion of Vân and not something we're saying in wikivoice. Might also be worth pipelinking to American imperialism#Post-1954: Korea, Vietnam and "imperial internationalism".

• Good catch, thanks. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [18] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [19] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [20] Verified.
• "with no trial" Consider "without trial"

• done SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [22] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [23] Verified.
• If we're going to be red-linking and referring to the English language names of these organisations, consider putting the Vietnamese name in brackets instead.

• I'm sorry, but that seems weird to me. Typically one gives the original name before a translation, not after. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Third Force coalition was both anti-war and anti-communist which worked towards [..]" Confusingly worded. Consider "The Third Force coalition, which was both anti-war and anti-communist, worked towards [...]"

• done SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [25] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [26] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [28] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [29] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [34] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12][35] Both sources verify she was on hunger-strike for five months, New York Times source verifies her weight dropping from 132 to 88 pounds.

  Was momentarily confused, but got there The Charlotte Observer, i.e. NY Times agency. (I rarely am able to access the Times from here. Paywall unless the link is in wayback.)

• Consider specifying 44 pounds and using a conversion template in order to clarify what this means in kilograms. (I personally have no idea how much a pound is)

• I usually am a failure at templates, and typically have to phone a friend o.0, but I think I managed. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good! --Grnrchst (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [36][37][38] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [39] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [42] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [44] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [45] Verified.

Politics (1975–2002)[edit]

• Spotcheck: [48] Couldn't find text about her being an "architect of the 1992 Constitution". Am I missing something?

• "Thanh [sic] also helped overhaul Vietnam's Constitution—adopted by the National Assembly in April—to guarantee wide-ranging economic freedoms…" Courtney, 1992, p. H3 SusunW (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers! --Grnrchst (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [48] Verified that she lost her seat and established the Fund for Assistance to Women's Innovation.
• Spotcheck: [51] Source says she served from 1977 to 1997. Doesn't mention her final term ending in 2002.

I think An Thuy Nguyen is misleading. It says she was "She was elected to the National Assembly four times, serving from 1977 to 1997" p. 97. She couldn't have served 4 terms in that time frame, as she lost the 1992 seat. Terms of the National Assembly are five years. For her final term to end in 1997, she would have had to be elected in 1992 and we know she was not. Nguyễn Túc says she served as a National Assembly delegate in the "VI, VII, VIII and X" terms. I don't have a clue where those Roman numbers come from but if the first election was in 1976 (call that VI), then by adding 5 we get VII is 1981, VIII is 1987, IX is 1992 (when she wasn't elected), and X is 1997. Simple math? SusunW (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hrm ok, I'll trust your maths on this one then. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy[edit]

• Spotcheck: [53] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [54] Verified.
• "The Women's Right to Live, which she founded," We already know she founded it, is it necessary to repeat?

• deleted SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "other feminist groups of the times" Shouldn't it be "of the time"?

• done SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox[edit]

• Nice work to you on figuring out the name for the article. I can assume from the explanatory footnote and talk page discussion that it was quite the head scratcher.

• Indeed . It takes a village... SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A couple cases of unclear prose. Should be easily fixed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All good on the MOS.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References are impeccably formatted.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   All sources are reliable and every section of text has an inline citation. Assuming Good Faith on Vietnamese language sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Had a couple verification issues, largely in the politics section. Assuming Good Faith on Vietnamese language sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig hasn't found any issues, nor have I on spot-checks.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Everything I'd expect to be covered has been. No big gaps in the timeline anywhere.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   One small case where I think it over-contextualises on what her father is doing, but easily cut/moved.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   A couple marginal cases where I think it edges into non-neutrality, but should be easily fixed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No major changes since it was nominated for GAN. Only reversion was over a category.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are in the public domain, with valid rationales - published in the early 1970s without a copyright notice.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant to the subject. They are suitably captioned, although alt text should be provided for the two in the "Career" section.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @SusunW, @Ipigott, @GRuban: Excellent work on this article, as always! There's a few minor issues I've found that have held me back from quick-passing this, but I think they should be easily dealt with. Ping me when you've addressed my comments and I'll be happy to take another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grnrchst I think I have answered everything, but am open to discussing anything. Thank you so much for helping to improve the article. Let me know if I need to address anything further. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW All good! Thanks for seeing to everything so promptly. All my concerns have been addressed, so I'm more than happy to pass this now. Fantastic work! :D --Grnrchst (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]