Talk:Phum Snay

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cambodia

Phum Snay is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Wikipedia, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cambodia To-do:

Let us work in the best reference and presentation of archaeological sites of Cambodia beyond Angkor like Sambor Prei Kuk, Angkor Borei (Takeo), etc.

Should disambiguate Republican Party for Democracy and Renewal and generally try to link up social conscience with right-wing values.

I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts. But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972 at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine. http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG

Thankfull for this info. [Unsigned]

Article Evaluation

The lead section includes relevant, basic information to set up the rest of the page. It is not very detailed however, and there is not much information. The content is straightforward, but not comprehensive. The dates are vague, and not specific. The tone is neutral, but not sophisticated. There is not information on altered viewpoints. The sources are relevant, and overall reliable. The organization is not impressive, but there are not any glaring issues. Overall, there is much to be desired from this page, but nothing is explicitly wrong. Julie Foss (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]