Previous nomination here.

Renominating for RM Gillespie; no opinion on the article. Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose still not encyclopedic writing style and unsourced claims that could be deleted. Wandalstouring 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of this objection being made more specific (particularly in regard to identifying the unsourced claims)? Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsourced claims
      • The Hill Fights"During December and early January there were numerous sightings of PAVN troops and activities in the Khe Sanh area, but the sector remained relatively quiet."
      • Operation Niagara"As a result, on 7 March, for the first time during the Vietnam Conflict, air operations were placed under the control of a single manager. General Westmoreland had won this battle."(the construction that this is the reason demands a source)
      • The Fall of Lang Vei"It was not until 1500 hours that the relief operation was launched and it was successful. Of the 500 CIDG troops at Lang Vei, 200 had been killed or were missing and 75 more were wounded. Of the 24 Americans at the camp, ten had been killed and 11 wounded.
        • Done, done, and done. RM Gillespie 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding style. I will offer a few examples, but this list is not intended to be exhaustive.
  • Border Battles "Troops of the US 1st Infantry Division responded quickly and handed the NLF a severe beating" - this is not really an encyclopedic term.
  • The Hilld Fights "...afer running roughshod over the Marines..." - it is unclear whether or not this is the manguage used by the source. If it is, fine. If not, it should be reworded.
  • At All Costs "The North Vietnames, rocked by artillery fire..." Again, not really encyclopedic.
  • The Fall of Lang Vei "Colonel Lounds rubbed salt on the wounds..." Not encycolpedic, unnecessary English figure of speech.
  • Riddle of Khe Sanh - This is more of a general comment, but i wouldn't pose questions in an encyclopedia article. There a few questions in this paragraph that would be better reworded as statements (i.e. it is unclear whether the purpose was X or Y, rather than "But was their purpose X or Y?).

There are also quite a few passive construction that should be fixed, but I don't think that's too serious. In general, the article needs to be combed for unencyclopedic terms and phrasing. I'm more than happy to support if this is done, as I have no other queries that constitute a substantial objection at this point. Carom 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic differences aside, is the article clearly written, factually correct, and well annotated? Are any unsourced claims still out there? Is the POV (aside lack of North Vietnamese sources, which, at present, do not exist) O.K? Is it too heavily biased? RM Gillespie 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will read it again, but issues you told were done remained unchanged and I did it myself yesterday. Wandalstouring 17:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]