# Talk:Huế Phật Đản shootings

Very well written article and congratulations to the contributors. It was a very interesting and informative read and seemed to pass the GA criteria, leading me to logically pass it as a GA. Most the article barring the prelude was written to an informative level and was fairly neutral. There are some issues with the prelude section of the article:

1st paragraph in prelude is rather heavy on its allegations of pro-Catholic bias in the government. These are all very well cited, but the prose overloads these facts on the reader. It would be perhaps send info about it Religious persecution in Vietnam and cut down on the details here.
"A 1958 rarely enforced law known as Decree Number 10 was invoked on May 7 to prohibit the display of religious flags." Confusing prose there.
Would it be possible to find any information on why Decree Number 10 was invoked. It doesn't really present the PoV of the government, implying that the only reasoning was blatant dislike of Buddhists displaying their religion.
In general, it seems that the article is heavily sympathetic towards the Buddhists who were persecuted and, while this is natural and perhaps impossible not to have as an undertone in the article, it would perhaps be better to present the point of view of some of the Catholic minority and how they saw the Buddhist crisis etc. Maybe that's not within the scope of the article but it's just an idea the main contributors could dwell on. It's not too major and doesn't stop the article from being GA. 
Also, maybe it would be better to attribute your opinions to the sources. As sometimes whole paragraphs of opinions remained unattributed, even with one reference at the end, original research may seep into the article.
AbA 06:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 

"Vesak" is the Sinhalese word for the holiday. It is not a universal term for the holiday, and it is not used in Vietnam. There is no reason it should be used in this article - the article has nothing to do with Sri Lanka.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This incident is widely referred to (in more than 25 other articles) as Hue Vesak shootings. But the article doesn't mention Vesak at all. It should at least recognize and explain the alternative name. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Huế Phật Đản shootings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304102006/http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/vietnam_war/3033916.html to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/vietnam_war/3033916.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)