Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Salute è in voi/archive1

La Salute è in voi

 * Nominator(s): czar  20:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably the first bomb-making handbook at FAC, this little article is a complete treatment of the subject and its weaponization from all of its major sources. After a review by last year, I haven't found any further improvements to make. I believe it meets the criteria. Looking forward to your consideration, czar  20:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 25¢
 * "An indispensable pamphlet for those comrades who love self-instruction"
 * "Mere possession of this wicked treatise would suggest that the owner was up to no good."
 * "The great unmentioned fact" of the Sacco-Vanzetti case
 * "If any of the bombers used La Salute as their textbook (and there is no evidence that they did), it proved inadequate ... None of the [their] bombs ever reached their intended targets ... They injured only bystanders or themselves."

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * "It also includes safety procedure" => "It also includes safety procedures"
 * "The handbook treated its measurements like a farmer's almanac by giving potential household uses for chemicals" - is it really the "measurements" that were treated like an almanac? I don't get this sentence......
 * "but otherwise lacking occupational access to dynamite and the practical experience in bomb-making" => "but otherwise lacking occupational access to dynamite and practical experience in bomb-making"
 * "La Salute è in voi did not contain complex formula" => "La Salute è in voi did not contain complex formulae"
 * refs after "if not the full book" are not in order
 * same with refs after "printed by the newspaper on its back page"
 * "depicting Ravachol" - could you give context to who he was? Just saying "depicting French anarchist Ravachol" would suffice
 * There's no reason to have brackets round the whole sentence beginning "(Though during". Lose the brackets and change the first word to "although"
 * "After Sacco and Vanzetti were denied appeal" - again, give context as to who these men were
 * Also no need to wikilink their names twice in the paragraph
 * "to avoid appearance that" => "to avoid the appearance that"
 * That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @ChrisTheDude. Appreciate the review and I believe I've addressed your bullets. The refs out of order are intentional so as to list the most relevant ref first. czar  09:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I have always understood that multiple refs placed together should always be in numerical order, but try as I might, I can't find any MOS page that actually says that. So maybe it's actually no big deal.  Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Verification

 * Comment: I verified all the refs when I did the GA review. No major changes since then. -- asilvering (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

SC

 * Link anarchist? (Or is that considered overlinking?)
 * For some translated titles—such as Cronaca Sovversiva (Subversion Chronicle)—you italicise both original and translation; for others—such as Guerra all’oppressore (War Against Oppressors)—you don't. I'm not sure of the MOS stance on this, but consistency either way would be best.
 * "defendents'": " defendants'"?
 * There's a couple of hidden notes you should probably remove at some point too.

Hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks @SchroCat. Addressed those. The italics is tricky because it depends whether the handbook is a creative work. I'm going to err on the side that it is, per its source. czar  06:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A final suggestion from me (your call on it either way): you can link both Ettore Molinari and Luigi Galleani in the image caption should you want to.Support from me – interesting article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ian
Recusing coord duties to review... All WP needs is a Featured Article on a bomb-making handbook but let's live dangerously... ;-)
 * Completed my habitual copyedit so let me know if you think I messed up anything -- no outstanding queries re. the prose.
 * Content-wise, seems succinct yet comprehensive, and neutral in tone.
 * I'll take Nikki's image review as read.

Source review
 * Nothing leaps out re. reliability.
 * Formatting-wise:
 * If you're going to link one publisher (i.e. Princeton University Press) you may as well link all you can (or none at all).
 * I don't think there's any need to include OCLC when you have ISBN, and it's not done consistently anyway.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Ian Rose. Appreciate the edits, which look good, and addressed the rest. czar  05:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Tks, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, is that a source review pass and a general support? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog, yes it is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)