Talk:Guatemalan Revolution/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Simon Burchell (talk · contribs) 11:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• I will be picking up this review shortly. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

• Wikilinking is a little on the low side; I've dropped in a few, but I'm sure that plenty more relevant links can be added. This won't affect GA pass/fail. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• In the lead Approximately 500,000 people benefited from the decree, the majority of them indigenous people who had been dispossessed after the Spanish invasion. needs to be rephrased. The people who had been dispossessed were long dead... I know what you mean but it could do with "whose ancestors had been dispossessed" or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out; I tweaked it, using "families" instead of ancestors. I hope that is okay.Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that works either, since it gives the impression of immediate family, when we're talking of over 400 years. Perhaps "forbears"? Simon Burchell (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I didn't like "ancestors," but "forbears" is good, I've put it in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Check your accenting of Spanish-language names/words through-out. It is quite inconsistent; I've found both Arbenz and Árbenz, Arevalo and Arévalo (I've changed all instances of both these names to the accented version). Simon Burchell (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reminding me. When I created it in userspace, I used the unaccented uniformly, simply because its a pain to use special characters. I ran through once before, but I've added content since then, and forgot. mea culpa, and thanks for checking, but I'll do another check myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've checked this, and I believe I have gotten every instance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• I've dropped a couple of journal articles into the Further reading - I'm happy to email them to you if you don't have JSTOR access. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The articles look good, and I do have JSTOR access, so thanks! FYI, the Gleijeses article you used is essentially a chapter of the book I used as a source, I believe. I don't think this is a problem, just thought I should let you know. As I understand it, he published many of the chapters of that book as articles before and after. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Feel free to cut the article from further reading if it is redundant... Simon Burchell (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to leave it, because people without the book (google books is not the most convenient) might have access. I brought it up because I was unsure if there was a guideline about it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dictatorship of Jorge Ubico

• complete immunity from prosecution due to any action they took to defend... would be better as complete immunity from prosecution for any action... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• one of the more efficient and ruthless in Latin America feels like it's missing a noun, perhaps better as one of the most efficient... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• labor class looks odd to me, I think it would be better as working class Simon Burchell (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This one I'm not so sure about; I believe the term comes from the source, and the reason for that was that "working class" is frequently used in academia to mean industrial/urban workers, whereas the sentence refers to manual laborers, predominantly agricultural. I will check the source in just a bit. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I looked this up. The source uses several interchangeable terms, but the most common one is the Spanish campesino. This is commonly translated as "peasant," but I've heard that "peasantry" is a little pejorative, and so I've rendered this as "agricultural laborers." Is that okay? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would say in the context peasant is fine, but "peasant farmers" would be better - I wouldn't consider peasant or peasantry to be perjorative when referring to such farmers in Guatemala (and much of Latin America), where many live in very basic conditions. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• 200,000 hectares - best to stick a convert template in here (and anywhere else with units of measurement) to give a non-metric equivalent. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe just me, but I have an intense dislike of unnecessary acronyms, like UFC. In a paragraph I would use the full name of the company in the first instance, and just company thereafter, if there is no ambiguity. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've done this in a couple of places, left it in in one place because I felt it might be a little ambiguous. I'll do it through the rest of the article, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed it through the article, with I think three exceptions, two of them where multiple companies are referred to, and one where there would have been too many uses in one sentence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• with the government not doing anything to, might be better as with the government doing nothing to... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

June 1944 general strike

• and rural areas too began organizing, would be better as and rural areas also... (in which case, the following sentence beginning The government also began would be better with the "also" dropped). Simon Burchell (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• The army itself had also begun to be disillusioned by the junta, better rephrased as By now, the army was disillusioned with the junta Simon Burchell (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Interim presidency of Ponce Vaides

• including the teachers, the students, and the progressive factions - I would drop all three instances of "the". Simon Burchell (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• a small group of army officers launched a coup from within the army - "from within the army" is redundant here. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• launched a coup, led by the coup-plotters - "the coup-plotters" is redundant here. "led by Francisco Javier Arana and Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán" is sufficient, it is implicit that they are coup-plotters. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • LOL. yes, it is. Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Election of Arévalo

• and also felt uncomfortable - no need for "also" here. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• He returned to Argentina...returned to Guatemala - try to rephrase this so the sentence doesn't include repetition of "returned to". Simon Burchell (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Tweaked this; take a look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Labor movement

• those which were communist, better as "those that were communist". Simon Burchell (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• Organización Regional Internacional Trabajo doesn't read well in Spanish, looks like it's missing something (probably "de" or "del" between Internacional and Trabajo). Simon Burchell (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Um. I have very little Spanish, so I probably mis-copied it from one of the sources. I'll take a look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I looked at the source, you were spot on, it is "del Trabajo." I've corrected it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

1949 coup attempt

• As the highest ranking military officer in the October Revolution, Francisco Arana had led the three-man military junta - this contradicts the Interim Presidency of Ponce Vaides section, which says a small group of army officers launched a coup, led by Francisco Javier Arana and Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you might be misunderstanding something; there were two three-person juntas around that time. Ubico resigned end-June, and handed over power to a three-person junta led by Ponce Vaides, who soon persuaded Congress to appoint him interim president. In October, Arana and Arbenz led the coup, and once in power, formed a junta along with Toriello. This second junta was led by Arana, since he was the ranking officer among the rebels. If there is a wording change that would make this clearer, I'm happy to make it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Apologies, it's fine. I misread. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• PAR - you are using the Spanish acronym, referring to a party you have previously only named in English - either give the Spanish and the acronym after the first mention, or replace the acronym. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • All of the sources I've seen use the Spanish acronym; I've never seen RAP. Therefore, I've used a piped link at the first usage to show the Spanish name instead, and I've also inserted the acronym there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• a small fragment of the FPL split from the parent party to support him - is this fragmentation of the FPL, or did this split from another party? If the "fragment" represents a division of the FPL, I would dump "from the parent party" and replace it with "...of the FPL split off to support him" Simon Burchell (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This was indeed a division of the FPL. They named themselves the FPL Ortodoxo, but they became marginalized very quick, so I didn't want to expand on that in the text. I'd amended it like you suggested. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note Simon, apologies for inserting the 1949 coup section after the review began; I an unsure how I neglected it in the first place. In any case, it is now in place. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Simon Burchell (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Election

• Once again use of the Spanish acronym PAR, which hasn't been explained. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've substituted the Spanish name in the first usage, as mentioned above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal life and political beliefs

• Something not quite right about the name of this subsection, which looks like a biography subsection sitting uncomfortably in the article. Perhaps rename it as "Background of Jacobo Árbenz" or something. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've retitled it "Arbenz' personal background." Is that better? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• he began plotting against the government along with his fellow officers, perhaps rephrase as "he and his fellow officers began plotting..." Simon Burchell (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• When Ubico resigned in 1944, Árbenz witnessed Ponce Vaides intimidate the congress into naming him president. Highly offended by this, Árbenz began plotting against Ponce Vaides, and was one of the military leaders of the coup that toppled him, in addition to being one of the few officers in the revolution who formed and maintained connections to the popular civilian movement - this seems a bit out of place; it should either be moved into the appropriate section earlier in the article, or change the tense to past perfect. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This stuff was in here because sources tend to link his ideology and his background, so moving it up would not, IMO, be useful. Therefore, I've changed it to past perfect, but I might have missed something. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Much better, thanks. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Agrarian reform

• 673 acres - earlier in the article, you were using hectares. It would be best to put convert templates in for all units of measurement throughout the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• 225 dollars - better clarify this as US dollars (neighbouring Belize has its own dollar, and Guatemala doesn't have dollars at all). Simon Burchell (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've prefaced dollars with "US" in all cases but those where the article is discussing things in the US itself. If you think that is necessary, I will put them there, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• indigenous people is wikilinked here, this link should be moved back to the first instance. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've actually linked it several times, because that seemed appropriate; I just put one into the lead, but there are a few more in the body. It seemed appropriate, because the term is a complex one, so I've linked basically first use in several sections. If you think they should be removed, I can do that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's enough to be getting on with for now. I'll continue tomorrow. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

United Fruit Company

• Again, I would replace instances of UFC the full name or with "the company" as appropriate - since the whole section is about United Fruit, it should be obvious which company. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done with couple of exceptions, as explained above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Impact of the revolution

• 550,000 acres - needs a convert template. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Lobbying efforts

• 200,000 acres - needs a convert template,as does 400,000 acres. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Political motivations

• According to Richard Immerman - this should be qualified - historian Richard Immerman, US historian Richard Immerman, or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Also wikilinked, since there is a stub about him. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Operation PBFORTUNE

• UFC - replace with the full name of the company. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath

• and a number of human rights violations, makes it sound like there were only a few, and should be rephrased to give a more accurate idea of the scale (and cited to support this). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources

• A couple of the books are missing ISBNs. They are both quite recent, so they would certainly have them. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Cullather 2006 isn't actually referenced, so it should be moved to Further reading. Preview is available from Google Books, so it could be hyperlinked. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Forster 2001, preview available from Google Books, so I've linked the ref. Likewise Gleijeses 1991 - preview of the 1992 paperback edition online, and linked. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've dropped in a number of further links where sections of the book are available from Google Books. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing comments

• AGF on offline sources. I spotchecked the one online source, and the Google previews of Forster 2001 and Gleijeses 1991/1992 (page numbers appear unchanged between the paperback/hardback editions), which revealed no copyvio concerns. Going forward (and this won't affect GA outcome), it would be good to have a short section near the beginning summarising the country's geography, major cities (Guatemala City and Quetzaltenango), and demographics (Maya concentrated in the highlands, Ladinos in the towns and cities, the Pacific coastal plain and the east), and regional production, since this does have some bearing on how the revolution and following civil war played out. All in all, an interesting and well put-together article. Once my remaining concerns have been addressed, I expect to pass the article fairly rapidly. Well done, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Simon Burchell, thanks for a very helpful, quick, and thorough review. I believe I have addressed every one of the points you raised; let me know if there's anything else, or any of them is incomplete. FWIW, I'm also happy to provide quotes from the offline sources, if there are particular cases you wish to verify. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)