Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation PBFortune

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation PBFortune edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Operation PBFortune/archive1

This article is about a planned military operation that never actually took place, but which nonetheless forms an important part of the prelude to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état (an FA). This was reviewed at GAN a couple of years ago after I rewrote it completely. The sources used are the best available, to my knowledge. I welcome all constructive criticism. This is my first ACR, so my apologies if I get any part of the process wrong. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — pass edit

Locations are provided for some book sources and not others. Either go all or none.
Removed.
Print sources shouldn't have a "retrieved" date.
Removed.
No concerns about the reliability of the sources.
Cheers.
Could you provide a page number for Haines? That would make it much easier to check.
I'll work on providing more specific page ranges for the journal/chapter sources.

Done.
Could we get specific page numbers for McAllister? The range specified is more than thirty pages, which makes verifiability difficult.
Done.
I'm confused by the page number in the sources for Schlesinger et al. It contradicts the numbers specified in the inline citations.
This was the result of copying over sources formatted for another article. I've removed the page number in the bibliography; it wasn't meant to be there
You might try incorporating Spanish language sources for a broader perspective. There seem to be plenty of hits from reliable sources on Google Books and Google Scholar.
I'll make an effort to do this, but I should note that when I searched for Spanish material for the article about the 1954 coup, I found much more stuff about the coup and its aftermath than the prelude.

Okay, I have now added the most detailed Spanish source I could find. I'll keep looking, but I'm doubtful that I'll find unique material in any of the others.
Source checks: references to Gilderhus check out. However, it was non-trivial to verify the information; adding specific page numbers where the information was found would help. b uidhe 17:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added page numbers.
@Buidhe: I believe I have addressed all your concerns; would you be so kind as to take another look? Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this meets the requirements, but I would suggest trying to get a tighter page range for: Schlesinger & Kinzer 1999, pp. 190–204, Gleijeses 1991, pp. 73–84, and Gleijeses 1991, pp. 149–164. In addition, the lede doesn't follow MOS:CITELEAD and the final sentence: "Operation PBFORTUNE was a precursor to Operation PBSUCCESS, the covert operation that toppled Árbenz and ended the Guatemalan Revolution in 1954" does not appear anywhere in the body. However, that is probably beyond the scope of a source review. b uidhe 17:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I will work on the page ranges, that's a fair concern. I have rewritten the last sentence to better summarize the last part of the body. I disagree about MOS:CITELEAD. The guideline does not actually forbid citations, and too many readers see uncited content they do not like and proceed to remove it without reading the body. I therefore prefer to keep the lead citations when writing about potentially contentious material. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed two of those three page ranges. I'm going to leave the Bitter Fruit range as is, because it's a lengthy analysis of the end of the revolution, but I've added a specific citation verifying the date of Arbenz's resignation. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, welcome to the ACR process. Unfortunately I can't comment on content as I don't have any specific knowledge of the topic; as such, I have focused on a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, AustralianRupert. I believe I have addressed all your comments. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest adding alt text to the images to assist vision impaired users, and those with screen readers
Done.
Nicaragua, Dominican Republic and Venezuela --> "Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela"?
Indeed, done.
duplicate links: Anastasio Somoza García, Nick Cullather, Honduras
Removed.
4500 grenades --> "4,500 grenades"?
Done.
Due to the political climate of the Cold War, the US was --> "Due to the political climate of the Cold War, US officials were..."?
Changed to "the US government was"
Yes, that seems a good solution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
several hundred thousand acres: suggest linking "acres" here
Done.
he launched a brazen attack: probably suggest dropping the word "brazen" here as it might be taken to convey a point of view
Fair enough, though really it was meant to convey the effrontery of an attack against vastly superior forces; but the sources don't say that quite so explicitly, and it's not critical anyway, so removed.
J.C. King had obtained weapons: the initials aren't necessary at this point as King has already been introduced earlier in the article
Removed .
File:Dean Acheson.jpg: this might be better placed as a left aligned image, so that the subject face's into the article
I don't usually like left-aligned images, but okay.
200,000 civilians were killed: avoid starting a sentence with a figure per MOS:NUMNOTES
Changed.
93% of these violations: same as above
Changed.
in the References/citations "Gleijeses 1990" probably should be "Gleijeses 1991"
Yes, fixed.
in the External links, the link for the "U.S. State Department report on Guatemalan situation and early CIA planning" seems to redirect to a general search page. Is there a more specific link, or archive url, that can be added here to enable readers to more easily find the report?
I found an archive url, but the additional information in it was minimal, so I've removed it .
Ok. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added my support, as all my actionable points have been addressed. Will have to let someone with more knowledge of the era/topic look at the content/coverage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this in detail for GAN, but am going though it again in detail because it has been added to since the GAN. I have a few comments, but it might take a couple of bites to get through them:

Thanks for the review, as always

"nevertheless, the doctrine was used to justify the coup in 1954." This presupposes knowledge about a coup happening in 1954, which hasn't been mentioned except for an allusion in the lead. I suggest moving this to the Aftermath section.
I have simply removed that final piece. It could be fit in aftermath, as you suggested, but the literature about the causes and motivations of the 1954 coup is large, and I'm worried if I introduce one of them I'll have to introduce others.
link Colonel (United States)
Done
"In 1949, Francisco Javier Arana had launched", as this is in the past per the chronology
Done
link Carlos Castillo Armas at first mention in the body, and is his family name Castillo Armas or just Armas?
Added link. Per Spanish naming customs, the last two are both family names; Castillo is a patronymic, Armas is a matronymic. Referring to him as just "Castillo" wouldn't be incorrect, but the sources tend to say "Castillo Armas", so I've gone with that.
link mentorship for protégé
Done
is there an article for the Guatemalan military academy to link to?
Afraid not. Added redlink, though.
suggest redlinking Civil Guard (Guatemala)
Done
link United States Secretary of State
Done
suggest using "Seekford" rather than just Seekford to emphasise that it was a codename rather than a proper name.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

at fn 30 and after, Dean Acheson should just be Acheson
Done
state when the Civil War ended
Done
Note b. and the last sentence of Note a. need citations
It's the same ref as that accompanying the footnote in the text, but sure. Added.
De La Pedraja, Gleijeses, Grandin, Hanhimäki and Westad, Immermann, McAllister, Schlesinger and Kinzer, Smith, and Streeter all need a location in the cite book template. Always add locations to the cite book template if coming to ACR, as it will be expected.
Is this necessary? Buidhe above suggested that either all or none was fine: and I've certainly got things through FAC without locations before. The reason I ask is that the physical location of a printing means less and less these days; multiple locations for the same book are not uncommon, and books not saying explicitly where they were printed is also not uncommon.
Sure. I've not seen that, but if you've got through FAC before without locations and you are consistent about it, then go for it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything further to add. Nice work on this article, an area rarely well covered on Wikipedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the review. I've covered everything, I think; there's one question for you, about source locations. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Nice work on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - images are correctly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

Let me see what I can do.

I'm not sure but shouldn't the government of a country be capitalised? Here are some examples.

the US government did not need
the US government was already
the US government was considering
convinced the US government that the Guatemalan government
presented to the Guatemalan government for tax purposes.
against the Guatemalan government.
At this point the US government

I don't believe this is necessary. The names of specific institutions are proper nouns and need to be capitalized; "US government" and "Guatemalan government" are not. MOS:GEOUNITS seems the most relevant guideline, and suggests that the capitalization is unnecessary.

which likened Latin American countries link Latin American.

Per MOS:OVERLINK, broad geographical areas are not usually linked.

@Vanamonde93: Hmm in this case you should unlink Santo Domingo, Guatemala, United Nations and Honduras because of MOS:OVERLINK. CPA-5 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-15: Touche. I've unlinked the last three; Santo Domingo, as a city, is a reasonable link. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

several hundred thousand acres How much is "hundred thousand acres" in metric system?

A hundred thousand acres is approximately 40,500 hectares. However, given the uncertainty over the actual area, I think the link to "acre" should be enough.

Good point and the Britons's and the US's acres are almost the same with just a really small difference.

Truman's personal military adviser "British adviser".

Fixed, good catch.

to contact exiled Guatemalan army officer Carlos Castillo Armas Guatemalan Army

Fixed.

There is some date style inconsistency; for instance compare "September 9, 1952" with "9 September 1952". Either style is probably fine, but it should be consistent. The other one is "8 October".

Fixed.

list of communists that the Guatemalan army Guatemalan Army

Changed.

paid a retainer of $3000 a week --> "paid a retainer of $3,000 a week"

Fixed.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks for the review. I've responded to everything, I believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good in my view support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.