Talk:La Salute è in voi/GA1

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

Reviewer: Asilvering (talk · contribs) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That's all for now. I'll be able to have a look at these books next week. -- asilvering (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for the review, ! I believe I've addressed the above, when you have a chance to take a look. czar 03:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * re: the nitroglycerin formula, I don't recall having seen the formula itself re-printed but I would figure the early 1900s anarchist contraband printer wasn't using super/subscript, so the letters and numbers were likely in a row. Either way, I'd consider this trivia and I'd just as soon remove the i/1 detail and just call it a typo if it's distracting.
 * re: S&V's parting thoughts, I've added a bit of clarification but I'll add that I would really like to track down this document. I tried looking into it a while ago and it traces to D'Attilio, which, as a conference paper, didn't do a great job of tracking his sources.
 * re: comrad, pretty funny. Yes, a typo. I had to turn off my spell check due to a Chrome bug with syntax highlighting but looks like I need it back.
 * re: infobox, no, since it's about an anarchist pamphlet, a full infbox seems like overkill. Also images don't always need captions if they're obvious, e.g., for the caption to say "Cover" when it is already clear to be a cover.
 * re: Application section hidden comments, I think I need to save that stuff for my rewrite of the S&V article :)


 * S&V's parting thoughts: he says it's in La Protesta Umana, which might not have been digitized when you checked last (gbooks did it in 2019), but it's definitely not in the "first" one (I must be misunderstanding him? unless they started over with numbers again after moving the paper to SF). Text search for the entire Chicago run on Hathi doesn't bring it up either. But context suggests he means a later issue, and those don't seem to be digitized. Here are the digitized ones, if they're new to you: -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's impossible for it to be in any of those, because they're all too early. So: ??. Ah well. -- asilvering (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I found the headline uploaded elsewhere so I brought it over: File:Protesta Umana, June 1926.jpg. It's just the headline and I expect either the story below it or a separate Vanzetti handwritten letter to be the one they both "signed". I started a separate talk page section for that investigation, since it's closer to trivia.
 * Let me know if you want any scans—I have all the material from the article. czar  06:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No need, I've got them, or the library does. I just need to wait for the library to have librarians in it. -- asilvering (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Last comments

 * Ok, this Larabee reference Ultimately, the idea that laborers without expertise in explosives could successfully create them from simple directions was impractical. that comes up in the lead and the main text struck me as odd the way it's worded here, but in Larabee's book it's even stranger. She says the book was "highly optimistic in its belief that untrained novices" could set people up the bomb, etc. But this is contrary to her own argument (as laid out in the intro to her book), which is broadly about how bomb-making books are not instruction manuals (at least, not exclusively) but rather a form of subversive cultural/literary expression. Your call on how or whether to address this - she does say so, so I suppose it's fair-game-for-wikipedia, but I'd just yank it. I do think it's important to leave in this sentence, though: Ann Larabee has written that the idea that untrained laborers could create bombs at home was and remains impractical, no more than an intellectual exercise. That's a truthful statement and doesn't assume anything about anyone's motivations.
 * Also, maybe it's just me, but "an indispensable pamphlet for those comrades who love self-instruction" strikes me as extremely tongue-in-cheek, so...


 * Similarly, I think statements like While the handbook's authors believed that amateurs would be able to build explosives by following simple directions should be worded to be about the handbook, not the authors, since we don't even know who the authors really are, let alone their beliefs. "While the handbook assures readers that..." or something.
 * "While its level of scientific detail regarding chemical handling technique..." - no objections to this sentence. But I do notice that Larabee's phrase is "it gave faith that" untrained people could make bombs. This is an interesting idea that might be useful in handling my two comments above. Or sprinkling into the article somewhere. Or for your S&V article when it comes to "why we can't mention the manual".
 * "the failed bomb components approximated that of a firework" - hm, this is the court testimony of a chemist, used more to say "it wasn't so dangerous as a bomb bomb". I'm not sure the firework bit is necessary. But it is worth saying something like "but the failed bomb was not of the handbook's design."
 * Okay, that's all of it. I'll leave this open for a bit for you to pick at, but those four items I've mentioned are hardly GA-killers, so do as you will and I'll come back to stick the green badge on this post all official-like when you're done, assuming you don't decide to vandalize your own article. Thanks for this, great fun to read and review! -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've struck the "impractical" line as being somewhat duplicative but kept the "indispensable pamphlet" for giving context of how it appeared when advertised. I kept the line about the "authors" because, between the handbook's introduction and what scholars have deduced about its authorship, the scholarly understanding is that the authors did believe (at least in kayfabe) that the pamphlet would serve as a practical guide. Believe I've covered the other points, but take a look? Appreciate the thorough review, ! If the article can make it through your close reading, I think it might be more FA-ready than I imagined. czar  22:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I definitely didn't mean you should pull the "indispensable pamphlet" line! It's just so superlative it makes me think that they're at least half joking (especially since all the information can be found in other sources already). So the idea that they truly believed that anyone could pick up this manual and make bombs - maybe kayfabe, yeah. Good analogy. Grats on the GA! Was a pleasure. -- asilvering (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)