Talk:Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 20:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator:

I will read this article carefully, and I plan to begin my review tomorrow. – Quadell (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: This is a very detailed article and will take some time. One of the first things I notice is that, like the GA Early life of Fidel Castro, you use a very sparse infobox here: no image, no info but the barest details. I assume that's intentional. I also notice that this is one in a series of articles on the life of Castro, which includes Early life of Fidel Castro, Premiership of Fidel Castro, and Presidency of Fidel Castro at the very least (and probably a Death of Fidel Castro article as well in the not-too-distant future), but they aren't clearly interlinked in a navigable way. Would you think it appropriate to create some some of Fidel Castro sidebar, something like Cuban Revolution, which takes the place of the infobox, includes a general picture, and links to many of the most important articles at Category:Fidel Castro? (Note that this is not required for GA status at all; it's just a suggestion.) – Quadell (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a bit fan of sidebars, as they have a tendency to get chronically overused, thereby clogging pages up. But I would be happy to see the infobox expanded, and an image added; however I feel that the image would have to come from the period discussed in this article, and there aren't many from this period which are free to use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there are lots of opportunities for improvement there, but it's not an issue for this GA nomination. – Quadell (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Batista's flight: The lead claims "Recognising that he was losing the war, Batista fled to the U.S." The article body doesn't give Batista's destination, but says "With his family and closest advisers, Batista fled into exile with over US$ 300,000,000." But the Fulgencio Batista article says that the U.S. wouldn't take him (and suggested Spain to him), so Batista fled to the Dominican Republic. So I suspect the "to the U.S." is an error.
 * Fair point, I shall rectify it! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Background: Although the lead does a good job of introducing the article, the body itself seems to dump the reader into the middle of a complex topic. The first non-lead sentence begins "Dissatisfied with Ortodoxo's non-violent opposition, Castro formed...", which leads the unwary reader to wonder "Non-violent opposition to what? Should I already know who Ortodoxo is, who Castro is, and what their motives are?" In my opinion, this article would be improved with a "Background" section, or a background paragraph, or even a background sentence. (I have to admit, though, after reading Manual of Style/Layout carefully, I don't think it's strictly necessary for GA status. It's just an opportunity for improvement.) By the way, linking to Partido Ortodoxo would also help here.
 * I've added a further referenced paragraph explaining Batista's coup and Castro's response to it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think this significantly improves the article. – Quadell (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: I have heard from several not-all-that-reliable sources that Castro was not particularly communistic until after he became premier, largely as a result of the U.S.'s unwillingness to work with him and the USSR's corresponding willingness. I was under the impression that he only later claimed to have secretly been a communist the whole time, thus solidifying his later alliance with the USSR. This article says that he was a revolutionary socialist from the beginning. Since I can't see the sources, can you confirm for me that they do indeed say he was a revolutionary socialist, even at that early period?
 * That's a tricky issue. Certainly, during the revolutionary struggle and in the ensuing era of provisional government, Castro kept telling both reporters (particularly U.S. reporters) and other sympathetic groups that he was not a communist. But at the same time, it was known that his two second-in-commands, Raul Castro and Che Guevara, were committed Marxist-Leninists. Upon creating the provisional government, he began conspiring with revolutionary socialist groups to build a socialist state, and within a year of taking power he was appointing Marxists to senior positions throughout government, including the Presidency. Then, in 1961, he claimed that he had been a Marxist-Leninist all along; some U.S. historians speculated that it was just to impress the Soviets, but he has stuck to that story for the rest of his life, and the available evidence does seem to fit his account. But I do think that there is still some debate on the issue among historians of modern Cuba. It might be worth highlighting the example of Nelson Mandela here (who was deeply influenced by Castro in many ways); during the late 1950s and early 1960s he was a member of the Communist Party, but repeatedly denied it to everyone right up till his death, when his own party officially admitted for the first time that he had been in the CP. Mandela's example shows that those involved in revolutionary struggles in the mid-twentieth century were perfectly capable of hiding their communist views and affiliations so as not to alienate support for their cause. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Most interesting. Would you be willing to change it to "Though he had strong ties to revolutionary socialism"? That's uncontested, surely, and fits the sentence. – Quadell (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Numerals: FYI, MOS:NUMERAL recommends numbers less that 10 be spelled out (e.g. "three judges", not "3 judges"), while numbers 10 and greater should be written as numerals. (There are exceptions, such as dates and infoboxes.) This is not a GAN issue, but I thought you'd want to know.


 * Clarity: "permitted a relative amount of freedom within the prison". All amounts are relative, I guess. Relatively high?
 * Relatively high for the context of that particular prison, so I'll try and ensure that that is rephrased. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: After Castro's attack on the Moncada Barracks, many attackers were horribly tortured or others were summarily executed. But Castro, their leader, was merely sent to a "relatively comfortable and modern" prison. The reader is left wondering why the easier treatment. Do the sources say?
 * I don't think that the sources are explicit about it. But it probably has something to do with the fact that he was the leader; the armed forces treated him with a little more respect as a result. But it also reflects that Castro was subsequent to his capture, he was actually in the hands of the legal justice system, and thus went through due process. Contrastingly, many of his (less senior) comrades were dealt with out in the Cuban jungle by soldiers who seemingly considered themselves above the law and weren't being held accountable by judges, lawyers, and reporters. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the sources don't say "He was treated with kid gloves due to X", then we can't surmise without creating OR, so I don't suppose any change is needed. – Quadell (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: "Requiring funding, Castro toured the U.S. in search of wealthy sympathizers; Prío contributed $100,000." Who?
 * With the new opening paragraph, this is made clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Expressions of doubt: The phrase "who allegedly orchestrated a failed assassination" is problematic, per WP:ALLEGED. Instead, say who alleged it, or where the claim comes from, in text.
 * My memory didn't recall where exactly this information came from; I double checked, and these claims seem to come from Castro himself. The prose has been updated accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Format: Wow, Wikipedia really doesn't like adding 's to an italicized name. See the end of the "Mexico and guerrilla training" section; it thinks you mean to bold everything between the two mentions. I'm afraid I'm not sure how to fix this, but obviously the current version isn't right.
 * I've fixed the problem... I think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: "Castro opposed the student's policy of supporting indiscriminate assassinations." That sounds like the students didn't care who they killed, which is probably not the case. What was their difference in tactics?
 * I've replaced that particular sentence with one that I hope is a lot clearer: "Antonio thought that it was legitimate to assassinate anyone connected to the government, something Castro thought rash and ineffective." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: The "Batista's fall and Cantillo's military junta" section says that Cantillo was picked to lead a right-wing junta, and that Cantillo chose Carlos Piedra as the new president. It says Castro opposed "the Cantillo-Piedra junta", and makes it seem as if this opposition was ongoing. And then the "Provisional government" section casually mentions the "junta's collapse". But there's no information on what happened to Cantillo and Piedra, who seemed to have been ruling the country up until that point. I realize this article isn't primarily about them, but a sentence on their condition would clarify things. I note that the Carlos Manuel Piedra article (sourced only to CubaNow.net) claims that Piedra was president only for a single day (January 2, 1959), which is not an impression I get from this article, but that article doesn't say if he stepped down, was overthrown, fled, or what. The Eulogio Cantillo article says he "was later arrested by the revolutionary government", but I don't know if that's in 1959 or much later, and besides, the statement isn't sourced there. Is such info in your sources?
 * As far as my memory serves me, they don't include much information on the subject, but the duo were arrested. I will try to make the prose a bit clearer here with "With the leaders of the junta under arrest". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I think more about it, I don't think more detail is required for the GAN (though it would be welcome, of course). – Quadell (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Wording: I don't think the word "retaliated" in paragraph 3 of the "Provisional government" section. It sounds like the article is saying that the press criticized Castro, and Castro retaliated against the press, which doesn't seem to be what the paragraph means. Would "replied" work for you?
 * I've changed the wording to "In response, Castro proclaimed..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarity: Was the first Havana trial before 17,000 spectators the same as the trial of aviators? The text is unclear.
 * I've hauled out the relevant books from a box under the bed, and can confirm that they are in fact two separate trials; I shall endeavour to make this clear within the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This is a very thorough, fascinating, and well-sourced article. I'm quite impressed.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * The prose is excellent. All issues have been resolved.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * All issues have been resolved.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * As usual, the references section is excellent
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * The sourcing is superb.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It's really remarkable. Though Castro is an exceedingly controversial figure—I could make a case that he is the most polarizing 20th-century figure still living—this article is remarkably NPOV. I can't even tell what your biases are.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are PD in the U.S.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * It's unusual that there is no lead image, but that is not required.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I'm pleased to promote this article. – Quadell (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unusual that there is no lead image, but that is not required.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I'm pleased to promote this article. – Quadell (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)