This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Vietnam This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States / Cold War B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force North American military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force United States military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vnguyen518. Peer reviewers: Jmarrs94, Lnicholson14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Overall, the article is definitely making solid progress. There are a couple of suggestions you may take into consideration: When formatting the section under your headers, your section summaries are slightly sparse and could use evidence to justify the claims. For sourcing regarding dates and numerical values, you would benefit from an in text citation. The article reads well and speaks to a wide audience. Ensquared ( talk) 04:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I think you have a very good starting contribution for your article, though more could be added to all of them, especially the ecological effects section. The claims are generally well sourced, but there are still a few claims in the article that I think would benefit from further citation. A relatively neutral point of view throughout the article was maintained. Overall the grammar and organization looks pretty good, however there are a few parts that would add to the flow of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnicholson14 ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The article seemed to be very comprehensive and easy to read; however, I would suggest going into further discussion about the Geneva Protocol, the lawsuits, and the government responses. In this, I think it would be beneficial to discuss what parts of the Geneva Protocol were in question and what was being used both in support and against the lawsuit. In response to citations, it would be beneficial to pick one way of formatting the in line citations and sticking with it throughout the article. I would also suggest proofreading the article mainly for violations of NPOV. The work was mostly free from any violations but there were a small number of instances where bias or personal voice could be seen. Overall, great work so far! Jmarrs94 ( talk) 03:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello! Upon reviewing, I find that this article is very organized and well maintained. However, I could not find any blue links or images, which greatly enhance the reader's perception of the article. I would suggest including blue links for key topics like "Agent Orange" and " U.S. Environmental Protection". Possibly consider dividing the sections into even smaller subsections, to enhance readability (this is my opinion). Also, some sentences seem to have slight bias to them, or at least some bold claims, so consider reviewing those. This is very great and thorough so far! Keep it up. Kateraz ( talk) 01:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You've added a lot of content to the article and made great progress. Just a few suggestions -

- the impact of agent orange could be illustrated much more effectively through the inclusion of a few photographs, perhaps one in each section showing deforestation, health effects, etc.

- try to just use wikipedia citation formatting throughout, there's no need for parenthetical citations

- try to fill out each of your sub sections a little more thoroughly

- it might be worth reorganizing/rewording your introduction to reflect the organization of the article overall

Please let me know if you have any questions or if you'd like any help with anything. GavinCross ( talk) 22:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Agent orange is not a dioxin. It is a mixture of two herbicides. The dioxin found in agent orange is a byproduct of the chemical synthesis and is only present in trace amounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likmevestje ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Effects of Agent Orange on the Vietnamese people. 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/20151122043623/http://makeagentorangehistory.org:80/about-agent-orange/the-plan-of-action/ to http://makeagentorangehistory.org/about-agent-orange/the-plan-of-action/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply