Talk:Final offensive of 1981 (El Salvador)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 17:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I will begin the review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Romero led Salvador during a period of military rule, he was then overthrown by the people behind the Revolutionary Government Junta which the article of the same name describes as a military dictatorship. Doesn't that contradict the statement "ending 48 years of military rule"?
  • The junta was a military and civilian government. Pretty much every source I've seen and used in the past stated that the military dictatorship was from 1931–1979 and that the coup and Revolutionary Government Junta ended it. The first junta was mainly dominated by the military (mainly Majano and Gutiérrez), the third was mainly dominated by the civilians (mainly Duarte), and the second was a bit of a mix of both (Gutiérrez and Duarte) which makes it pretty complicated.

• Could you briefly explain why the left-wing groups were waging war again the government and how the outbreak of the civil war is tied to the coup that brought down Romero? Was the first junta left wing?
  • The junta promised a lot of economic and political reforms which antagonized the right since they wanted none of it and also the left since they wanted more than what was promised. The right began to form death squads (after the junta dissolved ORDEN) and the left (which parts of which were already militarized) joined forces in opposition to the government and the death squads. This is why the coup is considered the beginning of the civil war since it overthrew the military dictatorship and allowed the civil war to get started. Sometimes the Final Offensive is called the beginning but more often then not I see sources put the start of the civil war with the coup of 1979. The first junta was both right-wing (via the military) and left-wing (via the civilians) but because the military was more dominant the right was more prominent.

"Sometimes the Final Offensive is called the beginning" - If that is the case it should obviously be mentioned in the article. When I asked for an explanation of the coup, I meant that it should be included in the article.--Catlemur (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• The first mention of the fact that US was allied with the junta should be made in the Background section. This way the decision to attack before Reagan is inaugurated is contextualized.
  • Added.

• Wikilink general strike, government-in-exile
  • Done.

• at 5pm local time→ at 5 p.m. local time
  • Done

• "soldiers from Cuba" - If Cuban soldiers fought in the conflict that means that Cuba was directly involved in the conflict rather than simply aiding one side with supplies. Were Cubans involved in this offensive?
  • The source says "More that 2,500 poorly trained guerrilla soldiers (FMLN soldiers) and a few hundred Cubans initiated scored of attacks against FAES (Salvadoran military) positions" (Crandall 176) and "The issue of Sandinista and Cuban support to the FMLN..." (Crandall 179). From how I understand it and how it's worded, it looks to me as if they are along the lines of mercenaries sent by the Cuban government.

Mercenaries implies that they fought for money rather than being sent by the Cuban government for geopolitical reasons. According to this paper Cuba helped establish FMLN, trained FMLN guerillas by building a facsimile copy of Ilopango Airport in Cuba etc.--Catlemur (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• FMLN captured eighty-two cities and villages so it seems like quite a large scale operation. The political implications are well explained (American reaction, FMLN government in exile) yet the coverage of the actual fighting is sparse. Was FMLN able to hold the ground they took? Where did the major battles take place and what was their outcome (or was it mostly hit and run attacks)? How did the government respond to the offensive?
  • I don't know, but I have a book that I ordered coming by 8–9 March that I bought for this exact reason. It has 26 pages of information about the offensive itself, 66 pages of background, and 12 pages of aftermath which should answer a lot of these questions. I will add to the page when the book arrives.

Take your time.--Catlemur (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe mention that FMLN was outnumbered, the veteran from the video in the external links section actually explains that FMLN were outgunned; something that is not mentioned in the article.
  • Added

• Most of the people mentioned in the Commanders and leaders section of the infobox are not mentioned in the main body of the article or referenced.
  • They were the leaders of the junta and the leaders of the major FMLN factions. I'll see what information the book has to incorporate their information into the article.

• Incorporate the FMLN losses information into the main body. Were they high in the context of its overall strength?
  • Added

• Infobox states Government victory. Was it a victory in the sense that the junta did not fall or FMLN suffered really heavy casualties? Because I do not see how losing 82 cities and villages is considered a victory.
  • It's a victory in the sense that it didn't collapse and that the FMLN failed in its goal. I'll change it to specify that it was a strategic government victory and tactical FMLN victory.

• "They believed that their actions against the government would spark a "full-scale popular revolution" like what occurred in Nicaragua when the FSLN revolted against Somoza Debayle in 1979." → "They believed that their actions against the government would spark a "full-scale popular revolution" like what occurred in Nicaragua." (This is already stated in the Offensive section).
  • Fixed

• The History of El Salvador, Communism in El Salvador, 20th century in El Salvador and Cold War categories are extraneous.
  • Fixed

• Are there any relevant images or maps you could add to the article?--Catlemur (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I tried looking but the only ones I could find were images on the Spanish article with blatantly incorrect licenses. When the book arrives, it may contain a map that I can possibly recreate myself since I'm accustomed to making maps of frontlines, but we'll have to see. Pizzaking13 (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Catlemur: I just added the information from the book I ordered. I hope this answers some of your questions. Pizzaking13 (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• "For the 1982 rebel offensive, see General Offensive of 1982." - This should be removed until the article is actually written.
  • Removed for now.

• "Soviet Union (denied)"→"Soviet Union (denied by the Soviet Union)"
  • Fixed.

• "in a manner to prepare for and plan for counterguerilla and counterinsurgent operations and warfare." → "in a manner to prepare and plan for counter-insurgent operations."
  • Fixed.

• "Cuba also send advisors and mercenaries" - "Sent" and as I mentioned before those were most likely soldiers rather than mercenaries, so the mercenaries should only be kept if the source brands them as such. Since Cuban soldiers were not purely advisors that means that Cuba directly participated in the offensive, rather than simply supporting it. I recommend that you cite this paper on Cuba's involvement.
  • All of the sources I've found do not state that Cuba itself participated, since that would imply that the Cuban Army was directly involved. The soldiers were fighting under the banner of the FMLN and were merely just send by Cuba. The Salvadoran Civil War and Ofensiva hasta el tope pages show Cuba as supporting the FMLN and not fighting alongside it. This is different to the Cuban intervention in Angola, since Cuba literally sent its Army to fight for the MPLA and in large numbers too. This is more like the Blue Division from Spain, Spain wasn't fighting the Soviet Union, Spaniards were fighting for Germany against the Soviet Union and Spain was just supporting Germany.

• "Marcelo Cruz Cruz" - Real name or typo?
  • Actual name. Spanish naming custom is First Name, Middle Name(s), Father's Last Name, Mother's Last Name, so both his parents' last names were Cruz.

• "Marcelo Cruz Cruz mutinied and murder Lieutenant Colonel Baltazar Alonso Valdés"→ "Marcelo Cruz Cruz mutinied and murdered Lieutenant Colonel Baltazar Alonso Valdés".
  • Fixed.

• Move the National Guard and general strike wikilinks to first mention.
  • Fixed.

• "the FMLN was expecting the arrival of 800 soldiers from Nicaragua" - Did they arrive?
  • Never specified.

• "hit-and-run attacks" - Remove the quotation marks.
  • Fixed.

• So were Nicaraguan soldiers directly involved in the offensive? If so, move Nicaragua to Belligerents in the infobox.
  • See Cuba discussion, the soldiers they did send were under the FMLN banner and not the Nicaraguan Army of FSLN banners. Their support was also mostly supplies.

• First and only mention of the call to assassinate Duarte is in the Aftermath section.
  • Oops, must have accidentally deleted it when I added more information. Fixed.

• "in which García stated:[60]" - Since the quote is referenced and attributed to García you don't have to include a reference and attribute it to him again immediately after it.
  • Fixed.

• "while the FMLN suffered around 500 to over 1,000 deaths" → "while the FMLN suffered from approximately 500 to over 1,000 deaths"--Catlemur (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Pizzaking13 (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Since strengths and casualties are already mentioned and referenced in the main body of the article, they do not have to be referenced in the infobox a second time.--Catlemur (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That's the point of the infobox parameter tho. In every war page I've seen, the infobox and body both mention strengths and casualties. Pizzaking13 (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not request removing the strength/casualties but rather removing the references from the infobox since this information is already referenced in the article.--Catlemur (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh alright got it. Done. Pizzaking13 (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: --Catlemur (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)