Talk:Battle of Long Tan

Pre-GAN comments

I have noticed this has been on the list for a while, and I have looked at this in the past with a view to reviewing, but have paused for a number of reasons:

• its length, it is 8% over the readable prose size of 100KB, this is also a strong indication that it is too detailed for an article written in summary style. For example, there is an Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan article, but the Assessment section is four long paras. For a company-sized action occurring on one day, this is just too large and too detailed. Coral-Balmoral went on over three weeks and involved two full battalions, considerable armoured support and on-site guns, and it only runs to 72KB (it is probably a little too detailed in parts)
• while most of the citations are to academic quality history like the official history and Palazzo, there are quite a few to participant accounts not independent of the subject (per WP:PRIMARY), including Burstall, Buick, and Smith, and there are other less-than-academic books that are used a fair bit, like Ham. I think McAulay 1986 is ok for the nuts and bolts stuff, but getting a bit old given the additional work that has gone on since it was published, including the official history
• the use of anzacday.org.au education material as a source
• the use of Chamberlain's work which is mostly self-published (what editorial oversight or academic review has there been of what he has written?)

These issues would need to be addressed before I would review it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to note that Burstall does not seem at all reliable, given the information upthread in the talk page, for body counts. He doesn't seem to be an authoritative source on matters beyond his direct experience. Kges1901 (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I agree that the page is too long and it clearly fails 3b of the six good article criteria, i.e. it does not stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Mztourist (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

What parts of the article are unrelated to the subject? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not what I said, the article is clearly focussed on the battle, it just goes into too much detail and lacks summary style. Whole paras should be summarised into a sentence or two. The level of detail makes it far too long. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so the low hanging fruit has been dealt with by splitting off a section into a sub article. I don't see any other bits that deserve their own sub article, or off-topic material, so two of us have gone through removing verbage. The article has thereby been reduced to 98K. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Long Tan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk · contribs) 18:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to be reviewing the article. I can see that Hawkeye7 has nominated. Thanks :) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Intro

• I think that the introduction could be slimmed down slightly. I've replaced the below with slightly shorter versions. Feel free to revert if you don't think they suit:

Several subsequent controversies about the battle arose, including fabrication of official events and embellishment of the roles of some senior officers, disputes over casualties, size of the attacking forces, and official histories of the battle which cite purported documents and anecdotal claims which remain uncorroborated. Australian official records of 245 PAVN/VC casualties led to some dissension from soldiers due to accusations that body counts were being inflated for public-relations purposes.

With: The reporting of the battle contained significant discrepancies, with accusations that body counts were being inflated for public-relations purposes.

And: The PAVN 275th Regiment and VC D445 Battalion held different interpretations of the battle's outcome. The D445 Battalion regarded the battle as a victory, with the initial mortaring intended to draw out 6 RAR units into an ambush. Following the initial ambush and due to the D445 Battalion holding the ground until the next day, this was regarded as political victory as they had secured the areas around Long Tan village itself. The 275th Regiment regard the battle as an operational failure as they were unable to wipe out the entire company, but consider that they gained a political victory by forcing a retreat until the next morning and earning greater support from the people of Phuoc Tuy. Additionally, whether the battle impaired the 275th Regiment is disputed, as they had launched attacks against the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) 18th Division a week later. The impact of the battle on the combat capability of the D445 Battalion is also in dispute, as they were redeployed against the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment Task Force a month following the battle.

With: The battle's outcome was indecisive, with disagreement on the affect between the PAVN 275th Regiment and VC D445 Battalion. The D445 Battalion regarded the battle as a success, with the political victory of an effective ambush, and the securing of the areas around Long Tan village itself. However, while the 275th Regiment were unable to wipe out the entire company, they gained greater support of the locals around Phuoc Tuy by forcing a retreat. Whether the battle impaired the capabilities of both Battalions is under dispute.

• I've cut it back still further, eliminating the controversy paragraph. Also, an error had crept in" the 275th Regiment was a VC regiment, not a PAVN one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• I've had a bit more of a read about Ernest Chamberlain, who is cited a few times. From military records, he seems to be a first hand account, and I have no objection to the use of his material as a source.

Main Body

• From having read the main body text, it is quite dense. I suggest that this would be eased through the splitting of each of the sub-sections into further sections, allowing them to be more navigable.
• Maybe increase the size of the photos to make the passage easier to read?

• Y I have removed the hard-coded image sizes per MOS:UPRIGHT Readers can adjust their own image sizes. Hard-coded images cause problems for mobile devices. Made the maps larger with upright=1.3 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• The main assessment section is quite dense, and another page already exists for it. It might be best to summarise the information in a shorter paragraph and ensure that the info removed is on the separate assessment page.

Overall

• I've found this to be a thorough, well written and in depth article. If the above can be addressed, this should be GA or pretty close.

Continued

Hi Hawkeye7. I've trimmed a bit more, and added some sub-sections. One observation is that there aren't many interwiki links from the Battle section onwards. Given that much has been converted to abbreviation, it would be great if Wikilinks were attached to the main sections. With this, I'd be happy to begin (and pass) the formal GA review. Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I've done a pass through the article and removed all the duplicate links per MOS:OVERLINK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Review

Hi Hawkeye7. Review is attached. Enjoy the GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Neutral point of view

I noticed that the article is written entirely on a autralian/american perspective. Although most of our sources are from this side, and the only good communist is a dead one, I believe we should refrain from using terms like "enemy", "opposing force" and the likes to describe the loosing side of the battle. I replaced the few instances I noticed with neutral and descriptive term "communist". Feel free to improve and diversify on this. Francis1867 (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. ~2026-43980-72 (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a little while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that it is quite long. When I read through the text, I noticed many places that went into unnecessary detail and could be summarised more effectively. Some of these sections include "Preliminary operations", "Casualties" and "Assessment" (which can probably be merged with "Lessons learned by the Australians"), although I think a copyedit will also produce areas that could be summarised more effectively. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, its far too long for such a small skirmish, but you'll provoke all the Australians if you try to reduce it. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Concur with both comments. There's no reason this page should be longer than Battle of Ia Drang, Battle of Hamburger Hill, and Operation Junction City, yet it is by a wide margin. However, I would also expect serious resistance if you attempt any reductions. Intothatdarkness 15:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This battle is the battle of the Vietnam War so far as Australians are concerned. As such, it has been the subject of great scrutiny in the literature. In American terms, it is therefore more like the Battle of the Bulge than Operation Junction City. It would be much better if those articles received the same amount of attention. However, I would point out that as it stands, it is like Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo, and Schmidt, where the US military historians chose to do a deep dive into three World War II battles, bringing them up to the level of detail of battles of the Pacific War volumes. It is my intention to bring the article to A-class in the near future. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I skimmed through the article's last A-class review, and a concern raised was the article's length. I share those concerns, and think that sections of the article could be spun out or summarised more effectively. Are you thinking of reducing the size of the article before seeking an A-class rating? Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem with this comparison is none of those battles have an article based on the study, let alone one the length of this one. While it is clearly heavily-studied in Australia, it doesn't appear to be elsewhere. An article of this length gives it, in my view, undue weight within the overall framework of the Vietnam War. Intothatdarkness 13:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree, it was a 3.5 hour long inconsequential skirmish, the US and ARVN fought hundreds of them throughout the war. However given that so many books have been written about it in Australia it has acquired an WP:UNDUE length and weight here. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

As a single example, the article on the Battle of An Lộc, which lasted over 60 days and was one of the pivotal battles of the 1972 Easter Offensive, is 23,801 bytes long. This article, about a relatively minor skirmish, is 140,683 bytes. That's almost six times as long. It's also within 50k bytes of being twice as long as the Ia Drang article mentioned above. The Hamburger Hill article is about the same size as the An Loc article, so again this one is almost six times as long as it is. It does approach the mentioned Battle of the Bulge (176,748 versus 140, 683) article in terms of length, but I don't think they're even remotely comparable engagements by any military standard. Intothatdarkness 15:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. In addition, there are also Battle of Long Tan order of battle and Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan, complete overkill for an entirely inconsequential skirmish. Mztourist (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I split them off to reduce the size of this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

They should have just been deleted as excessive. Mztourist (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Concur. While the engagement might be heavily-studied in Australia, its impact on the wider war was minimal at best. The Assessment article alone is longer than the articles on An Loc and Hamburger Hill and almost as long as the Battle of Dak To. Intothatdarkness 12:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: WP:UNDUE refers to the balance of information within an article, not the number of articles in the Wikipedia. This is another instance of Wikipedia has more... What we need to do is to put more work into improving the other articles on battles in the Vietnam War. But I am not seeing the interest in the war in the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a bit of a spurious position in my view. The Vietnam War has been heavily-studied in the United States, both at the time in any number of military journals and since then in scholarly works, memoirs, and the like. Referencing an essay does not change the fact that Long Tan was a minor engagement in the greater order of things in Vietnam and doesn't need the amount of detail and, frankly, minutiae we see now. That it has no fewer than three separate articles gives it the appearance of being far more significant than it really was...especially to the generalist who is more likely to use Wikipedia as a research tool without understanding its many limitations and shortcomings. Intothatdarkness 18:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

And who is going to be searching for information on the Battle of Long Tan? Most likely an Australian wondering what the documentaries and public commemorations are all about. Otherwise, probably a student at the academy or the staff college looking for detailed information when it comes up as a staff study or research project. The Wikipedia is a compendium of knowledge. We don't delete information about the United States just because too much has been written about that country. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a rather interesting assumption. And you're still skirting the basic issue: this article is far too long and detailed for a simple skirmish with little to no strategic impact. But since you don't seem interested in discussing (or even acknowledging) this, it's probably pointless to continue here. Intothatdarkness 22:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Intothat I completely agree. As I think I've said earlier, before actually studying Long Tan, I assumed that it was a major multi-day battle with a decisive impact, rather than the small indecisive skirmish it really was. As you note, the overlong main page and the 2 other pages confirm my initial misunderstanding of its significance.User:Hawkeye7 we don't need more minutiae of US Vietnam War battles, we need less minutiae of this battle. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The concern about article length was raised in the Pre-GAN Review section above. At that time (2020), the article was reported to be around 98k. It's grown by almost 50k since that time. Given the trend, I fully expect it will continue to grow. Why, for example, is there a rather large section in this article about the assessment of the battle when there's also a rather large article concerned with the same thing? And since the Results section of the infobox dumps a reader into this extended section (with no clear sub-heading discussing results but rather a series of rather convoluted sub-headings, leaving the reader to sort through them to find any discussion of a result) it's less than helpful. Intothatdarkness 14:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Battle of Long Tan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

In November 2025, I posted concerns on the talk page that this article (at almost 16,000 words) was too long. There was discussion on the talk page from some editors, but more editor input is needed on if this article can justify its extended length when compared to WP:GA criterion 3b (the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style"). In my opinion, I think this article is too detailed and information should be spun out or summarised more effectively in order to keep its GA status. Recent major trims happened in Nov. 2025 and March 2026. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Having just the lead, it’s written from an Australian perspective. I would expect something that is balanced instead. Schwede66 05:59, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The concerns I expressed back in November remain. This article is far too long and gives what was in reality a fairly minor skirmish far too much weight in the overall context of the conflict. Its importance to the Australian understanding of the conflict isn't relevant to this. It's also worth noting there are no less that THREE articles about this one minor skirmish. I think the lack of balance relates directly to the battle's relatively small size and lack of significance in the wider conflict. Intothatdarkness 12:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The Battle of Long Tan is the best known (for most people, the only known) action of the Vietnam War in Australia. From the Australian point of view, it had a major impact on the nation's participation in the war and the way the war is viewed today. It is commemorated every year, sometimes with a public holiday. It is regularly studied in exhaustive detail at the staff college. With the Matthew effect that comes with well-known battles, attracts a disproportionate amount of literature. Coverage from the Australian side is exhaustive, that from the Vietnamese side is meagre, many of the participants having died in subsequent actions. Getting rid of this article will not improve other articles. This nomination is just the Wikipedia equivalent of renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Seriously? You dodged the question of disproportionate coverage on the talk page as well. Does this minor engagement really need three different articles or one of this length? This is also a GAR, not an attempt to "[get] rid of this article." And the Trump analogy is perhaps a bit much. Perhaps take a step back from the Australian PoV and look at the wider context of the war. Maybe some of this would be better-suited to an article about Long Tan in Australian popular culture or something denoting its impact there. But it did not have a similar impact on the conflict writ large. Intothatdarkness 00:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

It is a bit much to say that information should be spun out and then complain about the existence of subarticles. There is no requirement for an military history article to be about a topic that has a major impact in the context of a war. All that is required to establish notability is widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Once again you're dodging the question. The main article is clearly too detailed given the context of the engagement within the wider conflict. Do we really need, for example, an Assessment of the Battle (after a link to a separate article with the same title) and a section for the Lessons learned by the Australians? Or the extended discussion of casualties? Keep in mind this action involved a company with supporting assets on the Australian side. Yet a casual reader might reasonably surmise from the length of the article we were dealing with an engagement on the scale of the Battle of the Bulge or Verdun. There is also no requirement for a military history article to try to include every scrap of minutiae published about a single engagement. Yet here we are. Intothatdarkness 01:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I did not write this article, but I have been at workshops where it was discussed. So I have feedback from readers, which is most unusual, and they do want to see an assessment and a section on lessons learned by the Australians. It would be nice if articles on other actions were as good. (Some are.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I see you're never going to actually address the issues raised. No reason to continue this discussion, then. Intothatdarkness 11:44, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not competent to give feedback on GA status, but as a reader I enjoyed this article right up until the Casualties section, which was so long and so detailed that my eyes glazed over. I personally like more detail and length in the narration of events in articles like this and consider it a lucky break when an article is long enough to be a good read, but the later parts could be trimmed/tightened up in my opinion. FineIllDoIt (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

If information is spun out, Wikipedia can have the best of both worlds: those that want a summary of the battle can read the main article, and those that want more detail can go to the child articles. With all the information in one article, the reader only has the option of reading detailed prose, which only benefits some. Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

That's the idea behind WP:SUMMARYSTYLE but Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. I already picked the low hanging fruit by splitting off the assessment into its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Good luck with that, I'm afraid. Again, I remain unconvinced a company-level skirmish requires this much detail (let alone supplemental articles). Interest in Australia does not equal wider interest. Intothatdarkness 16:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether there is wider interest in ice skating, poisonous mushrooms or hip hop songs. Wikipedia is compendium of knowledge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Nice to see you remain consistent. Good luck trimming this one, @Z1720. At the very least, though, it should be removed from GA status based on the overwhelming minutiae. Intothatdarkness 21:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The basic prose is, honestly, overdone. The size of the article could be reduced a fair amount with some simple (but aggressive) copy editing. The first two sentences in the 11 Platoon Isolated section provide an example. As written, it's "Amid the noise of machine gun and rifle fire and the VC bugle calls, Stanley brought the 161st Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery into action to support the Australian infantry. Yet as he was unable to see them, for safety reasons the initial rounds were directed a distance from 11 Platoon's known location, before "walking" the fire in to between 200 and 300 metres (220 and 330 yd) of their position, aided by D Company's favourable location between the VC and the gunline at Nui Dat, which allowed the rounds to pass over their heads and fall away from them." This doesn't appear to be a direct quote from the cited work (and if it is it's improperly attributed), so it could be cut back to something like "Stanley directed the 161st Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery to fire in support of the infantry. The initial rounds were targeted away from the Australian infantry and "walked" in closer since Stanley didn't have a direct view of their position." I'm not ever sure the second sentence in the suggested revision is needed. There's quite a bit of this kind of thing in the article, and if we can't get rid of the minutiae we might at least be able to reduce its impact on the general reader. Intothatdarkness 14:44, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I like your example rewrite, so +1 FWIW FineIllDoIt (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2026 (UTC)