Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation PBFortune/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 August 2019 [1].
Operation PBFortune[edit]
This article is about an abortive attempt by the US government to overthrow the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz. It was a prelude to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, an episode of major importance to US-Latin America relations. I have dredged through virtually all of the substantive English secondary source material, and some of the Spanish material, too. It has undergone a GA review from Peacemaker67, and an A-class review from the Military history wikiproject. I welcome all critique. I will be occasionally offline over the next few weeks, but should be around enough to deal with comments within a reasonable timeframe. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by PM[edit]
I reviewed this article at GAN then at Milhist ACR, so I have very little to add:
- suggest dropping the citation in the lead, as the State Department decision is covered in the body
- While being fully aware of CITELEAD, I have developed a strong preference for keeping lead citations, because I spend far too much of my time reverting drive-by editors who remove info from the lead claiming it isn't cited. So, unless this would unduly upset you, I'd like to leave it in.
- link military junta and Coup d'état
- Done.
- CIA in full at first mention, and link
- Done.
- suggest linking Director of Central Intelligence
- Done.
- suggest just piping Colonel (United States) to "Colonel" rather than "US Colonel"
- Done.
- say that Quezaltenango was/is the second largest city in Guatemala
- Done.
More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- "did not explicitly tell Dulles" It isn't clear why Mann and Miller had the power to give directions to the CIA?
- It wasn't meant to suggest that they had authority over the CIA, but rather that Dulles was looking for their approval. I've added some text that hopefully clarifies this; let me know if it needs more work.
- suggest mentioning Operation PBHISTORY in the body when mentioning Árbenz's resignation
- Added.
- suggest providing a translation of the title of Moulton's article via a trans-title field
- Done.
- the sources are all of high quality and reliable. I conducted a spotcheck of the Haines citation (fn 38) and also checked fn 31 × 4 from Hanhimäki & Westad. From that, perhaps add to the material cited to fn 31c that the 74 were to be imprisoned or exiled?
- Good spot, thank you. Fixed now.
That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Thanks as always; all points addressed, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
SC[edit]
Nice article. Only two points, both rather small, for you t consider:
- Background
- What is a "a widely successful literacy campaign"? A campaign that was generally successful, or one that was geographically wide in its implementation?
- Planning
- "grossly undervalued price": shades of POV in this, so it may be best to qualify with "what the company (or government) considered a g.u.p." or similar
Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- @SchroCat: Thanks. I have removed the terms "widely" and "grossly", respectively. In each case, they are an accurate summary of what the sources say, but when I reread those sentences, don't seem to add much to the article. "Grossly undervalued" is, in particular, something that many of the sources comment on; the UFC undervalued its land to reduce its taxes, and then cried fowl when it was compensated based on a ridiculously low value; but that episode is tangential to this article, so I think it's best kept simple. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Good work, meets the criteria on prose, as far as I can see. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Sources review[edit]
A sources review was carried out as part of the recent A-class review, and a number of issues were raised then and dealt with. I thus have little to add:
- No spotchecks carried out
- All links to sources checked and working
- Formats
- Ref 18 requires pp.
- Likewise 21
- Quality/reliability: sources appear comprehensive, and to meet the requirements of the FA criteria.
Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Formatting issues fixed; thanks for the review. FTR, Peacemaker carried out some spotchecks, above. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Maury[edit]
I have made minor edits to the article throughout. I found the prose to be rather complicated considering the relative simplicity of the topic. I have broken up a number of run-on-paragraphs, including the enormous block of text that was the lede, and reworded a number of statements for clarity. However, I think this still needs another run-through or two to improve the prose before we can move this to FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: I'm happy to receive commentary on my prose, but without specifics to work on, there isn't too much I can do...Thanks for the copy-edits. I was happy with most of your adjustments, but I made a couple of changes; for instance, following the sources and Spanish naming customs, Carlos Castillo Armas is referred to as "Castillo Armas" after the first mention; even if we abbreviated it (which we shouldn't, because the sources don't) it would be "Castillo", not "Armas". Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well I've fixed the issues I saw, but I'm sure I've missed some. The issue I have is that I found so many so easily, yet no one above seems to have noticed any of them. This concerns me and I think we need more eyeballs. I'm good as it is now. 15:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: Casliber has taken a hack at the prose (see below); so I wonder if you could have another look at this, and if there's not anything you'd like me to change, if you'd consider supporting. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: Not to be a bother, but this is approaching the bottom of the list, and if there's anything else I can do to satisfy you that this meets the criteria, I'd love to know about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, back. Not much left...
- "details of the plan had become too widely known." - I think the "too" should be removed.
- "intervention, and so terminated the operation" - Acheson had authority to do this? Was the CIA under State at that time?
- "respectively, felt threatened by Arévalo's reforms" - why? I can guess some reasons, but that's SYNning.
- "CIA's ability to move arms around Central America without the approval of the State Department" - this suggests the answer to the question above is "no".
- finally, what does the "PB" signify? It's also part of following missions, so I think it's more than just something to throw off the scent.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments tentative support from Cas Liber[edit]
At first read-through I thought it was fine, but noting Maury's comments I have found some things to simplify. Will note queries below:
- Actually there are a few cases where the text is a little repetitive. See my edits. I will see if i can find others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Accounts of the final termination of the coup attempt vary between historians. - why not, "Accounts of the final shut down vary between historians."?
I'm not seeing anything else Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
- File:Guatearbenz0870.JPG: What's the copyright status of the mural?
- It isn't relevant, because Guatemala allows the reproduction of public artwork. This image has been included in two different articles that have been through FAC; see here, for instance.
- File:Lieutenant General Walter Bedell Smith, three-quarter length portrait, seated, facing front, in uniform.jpg: Where is the licensr stated?
- The image description states that it is the work of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, and so is in the public domain.
- File:Allen w dulles.jpg: It's not obvious that this is an US government work.
- Prologue Magazine is a government publication that uses material from the government archives.
- File:Dean Acheson.jpg: Source link is broken.
- Fixed
The ALT text for the mural should probably explain a bit better what role the image of the mural has here - is it meant to illustrate that Árbenz had popular appeal? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Elaborated a little, but it's covered by the caption...@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've responded to everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Since you've been active: did you have any further licensing concerns, or are my responses sufficient? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed this one. Yes, it seems all OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Since you've been active: did you have any further licensing concerns, or are my responses sufficient? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]
- in a military coup led by Jacobo Árbenz in October 1944, an event known as the October Revolution Is there an article for the coup?
- Afraid not. Guatemalan Revolution is all we have at the present, and that's linked already.
- The coup leaders called for open elections Maybe pipe the elections to the elections's article.
- Piped to "were won", because that seemed more logical to me.
- governments in Central America and the Caribbean Link both Central America and the Caribbean here.
- Per MOS:OVERLINK, these shouldn't be linked; they are very large geographical units.
- intensified its lobbying in Washington against Are we talking about D.C. or the state?
- D.C. I've added that.
- four individuals from Santo Domingo who were at Maybe add the Dominican Republic here. Because there are more than one Santo Domingos.
- Yes, but it's linked; and the one in the DR is the primary topic, after all.
- than Truman to support Árbenz's overthrow.[44][41] Reorder the refs here.
- Done.
- Of these violations, 93% were committed Please use percent here the symbol should only be used in tables or infoboxes.
- Done.
- of Arévalo and Árbenz as communist --> "of Arévalo and Árbenz as a communist".
- That's incorrect though; it's the policies of two presidents that are being referred to. "Policies ... as communist".
- Guatemala's second largest city Second largest needs a hyphen.
- Done.
- that Castillo Armas wanted killed --> "that Castillo Armas wanted to be killed".
- The previous is more succinct.
- the US trained and funded an invasion You mean US-trained?
- No...the United States provided training and funding, is "The US trained and funded..."
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.