Talk:Double Seven Day scuffle

message: To the GAC reviewer, this is obviously not a huge event, since the fight was very short. It's not like we're describing a boxing match or anything....Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC 

message: I will be completing the GAC review soon. Rudget. 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Assessment 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 14, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Check
:2. Factually accurate?: Check
:3. Broad in coverage?: Check
:4. Neutral point of view?: Check
:5. Article stability? Check
:6. Images?: Check
A very well written article, outstanding in some places. I can't see, or for that reason, forsee why this article can't become a featured article. I've reworked some of the grammar, but feel free to place back if you wish, after all where the comma's are put is only my opinion. So yes, a very good article and a definite GA pass. Well done Blnguyen!  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Also note, that I won't be removing this or placing this on the relevant GA boards just yet as I'm backlogged by a few articles and would rather remove them all at once. Thank you. Rudget. 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: Congratulations on getting the article to FA status. I read the article when I saw it promoted, and I think the writing still needs some copyediting and tightening of prose. Here are my comments:
; Lede
* Is there a way to break up the lede into 2 paragraphs?  The length is disconcerting, as is the non-sequential chronology (Punch thrown -> photographed -> published (future) -> negative attention (further future) in midst of Buddhist crisis (further past) -> quarrel ended (present!) -> storming of embassy upon release (future, but was this before or after publication of the photographs) etc.)
* Three consecutive sentences in the lede use after/afterwards. This makes the writing somewhat stilted and also the time-frame is not clear, especially whether the release and storming of embassies happened hours or days after the previously described event.
**I've re-structured the Lead, I hope I haven't introduced any errors.--GrahamColmTalk 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fixed the unintended meaning and clarified. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: done, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: done, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: done, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: done, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, but clearly it is the conversion of the approximate. In science even if you put 1.2 +/ 0.2 km you can convert this to miles without changing anyting. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: done. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The book doesn't exactly say who was been bothered by his speech, but I think we can be sure that it was teh Buddhists, since the pictures can't have been published on the same day. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know the formal reason but I think it has to do with the idiom of "filing". For example, the tax return is filed with the IRS (or, sent to the IRS). The  "filed ... to " construction is used to mean "filed for the purpose of", for example, "I filed a lawsuit against the IRS to get my refund". A google search yields more examples, but maybe someone here can point out  the grammatical rule. Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Done, thanks, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Reversed and fixed. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Done thanks, Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I reworded to avoid the unintended meaning. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Arnett is NZ. The book did not say why UK official was used and not NZ. There is not hint that NZ did not recognise RoV. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *No indication given but I doubt the NYT would be printing the aftermath of one fight when Diem's people were attacking new people on a daily basis. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Fixed. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, great work revising the article, GrahamColm, NishKid, and Blnguyen! I'll give it another read through soon and let you know if I have any more questions or suggestions. Such, off-beat wiki articles are the most fun to read and review. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about prose 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 4, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 4, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors  or his delegate , or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page appearance 

message: I think the article would benefit from more discussion of the event's context and significance (or lack thereof).  I don't get much of a sense of how this incident fit into the larger picture.  John M Baker (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context and significance