Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation PBFortune/archive1

Operation PBFortune

 * Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 03:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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, 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)

Comments Support by PM
I reviewed this article at GAN then at Milhist ACR, so I have very little to add: More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC) That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * "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.
 * 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
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)
 * 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
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

Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality/reliability: sources appear comprehensive, and to meet the requirements of the FA criteria.
 * 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
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)
 * 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)
 * Okay, fair enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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...

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "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.

Comments tentative support from Cas Liber
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:

I'm not seeing anything else Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Looked them over, very helpful, thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 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 don't particularly like "shut down" because it's use has become colloquial to such an extent, but I've shortened to "Accounts of the operation's termination vary between historians". Does this address your concerns? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah that hlps Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've responded; thanks for the review. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Have looked again. I think I support. It reads fine to me - I had to look a couple of times to see anything but did so due to Maury's concerns. Hence consider my support conditional on no-one else finding much to complain about.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review
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)
 * 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
 * Elaborated a little, but it's covered by the caption... I've responded to everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Cheers. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 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..."
 * I have responded to all your comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  00:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)