Talk:Operation PBHistory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I will be giving this article a review for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well-written - felt like I was reading a spy novel. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Researching the research - so far everything looks good. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

   Most of what appears in the references are unavailable to me but the sources are cited multiple times in other publications so I am AGF that what the editor-author states they say is what they say. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - yay, no issues! Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Absolutely. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   I wil need to do some more readthroughs to make sure but the information presented does all seem necessary. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   This is probably still a controversial subject but I think the writer has done a good job of presenting the various POVs from the principals involved. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Very stable, no wars! Shearonink (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Arbenz 1945.jpg is lacking its US Public domain tag. Shearonink (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

   Comment: The above image file needs to have a US public domain tag before I can pass the article on this particular parameter. Shearonink (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Shearonink: Thanks for the review. In the months since this was nominated, I've discovered that this is an issue with many Guatemalan images, and that it is likely an insoluble one, because a) source information is poor/nonexistent, and b) the images are probably not PD in the first place. What do you think of this as an alternative? (the guy in the mural is Arbenz). Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Vanamonde93: I am concerned that a wall-mural could be used to illustrate a biographical aspect of this article but I think if it has an appropriate caption then it could do really well - something about how Arbenz is well-regarded & looked-up to in his home-country (the mural sure looks like it's been done sometime fairly-recently...) I also found File:Posesionarbenz.jpg which is a photo of Arbenz making a speech and that has all the appropriate PD tags. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Shearonink: I've switched them, take a look. It's not strictly a biographical aspect, is it, it's the entire background/overthrow process, of which Arbenz was a pivotal part. Thanks for the other image, I was unaware that its issues had been resolved: but I think you'll agree that aesthetically, it's not the best picture. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Vanamonde93: I think your explanatory caption makes all the difference. It's just that the other people named in the article are illustrated with photographs of them not of a mural - I didn't want Arbenz to stand out/look odd in comparison to the other people. Shearonink (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

   Nice job on selecting images that go with the text, makes the people more real to our readers. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I will be doing a few more proofreading-readthroughs to see if there are any issues I might have missed. Barring finding anything new, I think I'll be able to finish up this Review within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review. Since you mentioned it above, I'm happy to provide quotes from sources, if you want them; though they are essentially all academic sources, and so used elsewhere as well. Vanamonde (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

   Re: the GA Criteria - the quotes aren't necessary for a GA Review's purposes - but including quotes would be something to keep in mind as you work on improving the article in the future. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

   Congratulations, it's a GA! On these last readhthroughs, something struck me - where did the name/acronym "PB"[SUCCESS/FORTUNE/HISTORY]" come from? I don't think any of the various articles associated with the subject explain that...maybe I missed it, but if the reasoning behind using that name is explained anywhere it would be interesting to add to this or any of the other CIA/PB articles. Shearonink (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Shearonink: It's interesting that you mention that, because that fact has bugged me for a while: every since I began researching the topic three or four years ago, in fact. But I have not found mention of it anywhere, and I have read a lot of the literature on the subject, at least in English. There are some documents that will just say "Operation Success"; but nowhere is the discrepancy explained, and this usage is very uncommon. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Bits & pieces

@Vanamonde93: I always do a few proofreading runs before I finish up a GA Review to see if there's anything I've missed and I caught something on this one - I think the second sentence in the lead section could so with some copyediting:

• It followed Operation PBSuccess, which supported the coup which overthrew Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz in June 1954, and was an attempt to use documents left behind by his government and by organizations related to the Guatemalan Party of Labour to show that the Soviet Union had been influencing the Guatemalan government, and to exploit those documents for further intelligence purposes.

I used to have to do sentence diagrams in school and this is an attempt along those lines:

It followed Op PBSuccess

which supported coup

which overthrew Arbenz

and

[it] was an attempt/to use documents left behind by his government and [left behind] by organizations [related to Party of Labour]

[it was an attempt]/to show that Soviet Union had been influencing the Guatemalan government, and

[it was an attempt]/to exploit those documents for further intelligence purposes.

I think adjusting the phrasing to make the timeline and motivations more clear to WP's general readership would be helpful (however you wish to do that is up to you). The information presented is not an issue but the clarity of that information somewhat is. I will continue to do a few more readthroughs - barring finding any issues I missed on my previous reads, I think I will be able to finish up this Review after you adjust that second sentence. Shearonink (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I, mercifully, was spared the sentence diagrams :) I've broken it into two sentences. Better? Vanamonde (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha-ha, oh my misspent youth... Thanks for taking care of that so quickly - much better. I'll do another read but anticipate being able to finish up the Review within maybe a day. Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)