Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Carlos Castillo Armas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Carlos Castillo Armas edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Carlos Castillo Armas/archive1

This is my second effort at ACR, after getting Operation PBFortune through this recently. Carlos Castillo Armas was a Guatemalan Army Colonel who was exiled, led a rebellion against the Guatemalan government, and became an authoritarian ruler, before being assassinated. This article was also the result of my efforts to rewrite most major pages related to the Guatemalan Revolution. This page has undergone a detailed GA review, as well as a GOCE copy-edit. It is based on solid sources, and I believe it is ready for ACR. I look forward to hearing constructive criticism. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Suggest scaling up the map
Done.
File:Carlos_Castillo_Armas_Color.jpg: when/where was this first published, and why would it be PD in Guatemala?
Unclear. I dug around on the internet a fair bit, and I cannot find evidence that it would be PD. Indeed, the likeliest scenario is that it was made during his time as president, in which case it's definitely not PD unless explicitly stated otherwise. I've removed the image.
File:Castillo_Armas_Signature.png: why would the uploader hold copyright? Same with File:Guatemala_liberacion_1954_55.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Unfortunate, but I don't see what else to do...I'll look for PD replacements, but they are of necessity not as relevant to the article. I'm considering adding this as a representation of Fort Leavenworth.

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review, as always. I've responded to your comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible image: This YouTube video shows Nixon interacting with Armas. It's from the Footage Farm, a UK-based organisation that says all of its material is in the public domain. Perhaps a low quality still of Armas could be extracted from the video. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Thanks for that; after further digging, though, I'm not sure. They say on their website [1] that most of their content is PD, but not all, and they're still charging for it. So I don't know that there's any way to be sure about that particular clip on youtube. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: That's the wrong Footage Farm, actually. There's a UK-based one and a US-based on. The UK based one appears to be entirely Public Domain material. At any rate, if it was known that Nixon had met with Armas for an event public enough to be taped, we may have a little luck in seeing if the Eisenhower or Nixon Presidential Libraries have a picture of the event. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, okay, good catch. Yes, I haven't given up yet; but searching for an image is more difficult than responding to prose/sourcing concerns about material I know, and I simply haven't found the time yet. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NVM; someone else has already uploaded a still from the video. Nikkimaria, when you have a moment, it would be nice to wrap this up. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is any more information available about the original provenance of the video? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not without asking the uploaders directly, which I can do. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've asked the hosting website multiple times now. They have responded, but not in sufficient detail. So, I've removed the image, pending further information. Would you mind checking the one new image in the article (of Fort Leavenworth), and anything else that may be outstanding? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New image is fine; suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, FTR. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, thank you for your work so far with this article. I haven't read through the article fully yet, but I have a few initial suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, assassinated by a palace guard: is "palace" correct here? In the body the assassin is described as part of the "presidential guard"
Good catch, fixed.
the date of birth should be mentioned in the Early life section
Added.
in the infobox, "Lieutenant colonel Carlos Castilo Armas" --> "Lieutenant Colonel Carlos Castilo Armas" (as it is being used as a title per WP:MILTERMS)
Done.
in the Early life section, is there any information about who his mother was, and where he went to school?
I'm afraid not: I've dredged every detailed source I know of, and everything verifiable that I found is in here.
No worries, thanks for looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the Early life section, "For his support he was promoted to lieutenant colonel..." -- suggest replacing "he" with "Castillo Armas" here. Also, what rank was he before his promotion? I don't think this has been mentioned, unless I missed it
I rechecked my sources, and it was a good thing I did, because it turns out that sentence was a hangover from the previous text that I had not deleted. My apologies, but it's now gone.
The lead still mentions "promoted to lieutenant colonel, joined the General Staff", but this isn't really supported by the body of the article now. There probably needs to be some mention of his rank in the body. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, fixed now. I've stuck to the sourced material still in the body. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, probably best to remove "Lieutenant Colonel" from the infobox in this case, also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Funnily enough the fact that he was a lieutenant colonel is easily verified; certainly it seems to be the last rank he held, because he was referred to as "Lieutenant Colonel Castillo Armas" on the ballot in 1954; he is also described as such when leading the rebels. Of course, now this information isn't sourced anywhere. I wonder if you have any suggestions as to where to place it, because I'm not certain how to handle it, myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not sure. Maybe here: This led to the selection of Castillo Armas, the lieutenant of Arana..., which could become: "This led to the selection of Castillo Armas, by then a lieutenant colonel,[CITATION] and a supporter of Arana..." Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Due apologies for the delay. I have implemented a modified version of what you suggested. Is this satisfactory, and did you have any other concerns? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I feel that the use of lieutenant and lieutenant colonel close together may confuse some readers, who may not understand the two different meanings of lieutenant. But it is a minor point, and one that I suppose not everyone agrees with. Added my support now. Thanks for your efforts. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
manzanas: is there a link that can be provided to clarify this for readers?
I'm unaware of a link, but I have added a sourced footnote.
Yes, that works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more pliable: this opinion probably should be attributed in text
Done.
was a member of the presidential guard;[94][81]: suggest putting the refs in numerical order
There were a few of those, all fixed.
the date format in the article is inconsistent. For example compare "18 July 1949" with "November 4, 1914". Either style is fine, IMO, but it should be consistent throughout the article
Fixed.
watch out for overlinking. The link checker tool reports the following as overlinked: Mestizo, Guatamalan Revolution, Miguel Idigoras Fuentes, Jorge Ubico,
Removed.
repetition: "Castillo Armas's force of 480 men" and "Castillo Armas's army of 480 men"
Fixed.
The army returned to its barracks a few days later, "despondent, with a terrible sense of defeat". -- the quote probably should be attributed in text
Fixed.
given that there are only two footnotes, three columns is probably unnecessary, particularly as the first note is split into two columns, which makes it harder to reader
Do you perhaps mean two columns? It doesn't have three. The note is no longer split. I have a slight personal preference for two columns because the references use the same format, but if you think it's still making readability an issue I can change that.
G'day, the footnotes are definitely split into three columns when I view the article on my laptop. Indeed, the first note (a) splits across the first and second column, with "illness was fictional" appearing in the second column. I suspect it has something to do with "30em", but am not sure. At the end of the day, it's not a war stopper for me. Probably best just to leave as is for now and see what other reviewers think. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, at some point in the last few years Wikipedia deprecated a fixed number of columns in favor of fixed column widths. This means that it's always going to display differently across different screens, unless I force them into a single column by forcing it using {{reflist|1}}. The documentation at Template:Reflist seems to suggest that 30em is the preferred width. That said, I am no expert, and if there's a good reason to change it I'm happy to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the Bibliography, capitalisation: "The Blood of Guatemala: a History..." --> "The Blood of Guatemala: A History..."
Fixed.
in the Bibliography, is there an ISBN or OCLC for the Horvitz work?
Added.
in the Bibliography, "Horvitz, Leslie Alan Horvitz" -- named twice
Fixed.
in the Bibliography, is there an ISSN or OCLC for the Figueroa Ibarra work?
I haven't been able to find one; surely this isn't a requirement? I don't recall being asked for this even at FAC, when using volume/issue journal citations that frequently don't have a working web link.
in the Bibliography, is there an ISBN or OCLC for the Harbury work?
Added.
in the Bibliography, is there an ISBN or OCLC for the Mikaberidze work?
Added.
in the Bibliography, is there an ISSN or OCLC for the Jiménez work?
See above.
in the Bibliography, Jiménez is listed out of alphebetical order
It wasn't the only one, fixed.
in the Bibliography, capitalisation, "Managing the counterrevolution: the United" --> "Managing the Counterrevolution: The United..."
Fixed.
in the Further reading section, the hyphenation of the ISBNs for the Koeppel, Martinez and Sabino is inconsistent with the other examples
Added for two of them. Every tool I have found online has been unable to hyphenate the Sabino isbn. I can remove all the other hyphens for consistency, but I don't know if that's helpful.
I use this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which says it is 978-99922-48-52-2. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PM, much appreciated. Added now.
in the Early life and career section, do we know what branch of the army he served in initially, e.g. infantry, artillery, armour? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I'm afraid I don't know. Based on the size of the Guatemalan Army I'd think infantry is a good bet, but I have no evidence for this; and I suspect that until a historian goes and digs around in the army's files we're not going to know.
No worries. Thanks for looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

Great work on this article so far. I have a few comments:

in the lead, is there a link to Arana's failed 1949 coup? Also in the body. I see later there is a link, so move it up to first mention.
Done.
in the lead, suggest "backed by US-supplied aircraft", as air force seems a bit of an overstatement
Done.
comma after "continued to suppress dissent"
Done.
suggest "when a CIA officer learned he was attempting" unless the CIA officer actually physically caught him in the act
Yes, that did sound like an attempted burglary. Fixed.
I think there should be a bit more information on the UFC's domination of the Guatemalan economy by way of introduction. Just a short para.
Added, adapted from another article.
after he's been introduced, shouldn't Jacobo Árbenz just be Árbenz?
Removed one instance; the other is in a caption, where I think it's useful given that he's not the article subject
say that Dean Acheson was SecState
Added.
were the soldiers from Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador or were they to enter Guatemala from those countries?
In Castillo Armas's abortive plan, they were from those countries.
any idea what sort of bombers were supplied and how they were crewed?
The bombers were a variety; Schlesinger and Kinzer write that the planes, the precise number of which is unknown, were of seven different models. I think this is too much information for this article. I have actually modified it to "planes", because some C-47 transport planes are also listed. They were piloted by Americans; this detail I have added.
suggest "failed to make any ~~striking~~significant headway ~~moves~~"
Done.
suggest "~~dispatched~~defeated by policemen"
Done.
the para beginning "Castillo Armas's army was not large enough to defeat the Guatemalan military..." seems out of place. It should be inserted earlier and only propaganda that occurred during the invasion should be included in the Invasion section
Good point. Reorganized, let me know if there's further issues.
there is a bit of repetition here, suggest "The victory of the small Zacapa garrison strengthened his belief."
Done.
state who Gleijeses is when first mentioned, a historian? a journalist?
Historian. Added.
what is the implication that they had strong nationalist views? That they would be opposed to foreign interference? Suggest stating this if the case
Added.
the formation of the three-man junta is repeated, but the first mention seems out of place chronologically?
Reworked, let me know if it's better now.
the article is confusing about who became president when. There is mention of Castillo Armas replacing Monzon as president, but then the negotiated statement is mentioned stating that the five-man junta would rule for fifteen days, during which a president would be chosen? I think the final para of the last two paras of the Aftermath section need to be organised in a strictly chronological way.
As above
the beginning of the Election section jumps back to July 7, same issue with chronology
As above
when were these elections? "In the congressional elections held under Castillo Armas, it was the only party allowed to run"
Late 1955. Added.
briefly explain what "justicialismo" was
To give an overview of this I'd have to go into other sources; Cullather specifically suggests that Castillo Armas just tossed the term out, without specific commitments. We do have an article about the term, though, so I've linked it.
the sentence "Castillo Armas's government launched a concerted campaign against trade unionists. Some of the most severe violence was directed at workers on the plantations of the United Fruit Company" better belongs in the preceding section
True. Moved.
what democratic reforms had he promised?
The only one Grandin describes is free trade. The democratic nature of this is disputed (indeed, from the text it would seem that Grandin himself isn't endorsing that description) so I've modified this to read just "reform", and included the detail.
should Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes just be Fuentes after first mention?
Following Spanish naming customs, he should be just "Ydígoras". However, English sources use both patronymic and matronymic, despite it not being strictly necessary; and so I've tried to stick with what the RS use, which is Ydígoras Fuentes. I've used the full name a second time because he's mentioned after a long break, and I felt it might be confusing otherwise; but I can change that.

That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, thanks for the review, as always. I think I've addressed everything now. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, supporting. Nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

US government of President Harry Truman authorised Operation PBFORTUNE British authorised.
Done.
Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador to kill communist leaders in Guatemala Link El Salvador.
Done.
bases in Honduras and El Salvador and assembled Unlink El Salvador.
Done.
On June 17 the army leaders at Zacapa --> "On June 17, the army leaders at Zacapa"
Done.
towns of Esquipulas, Jutiapa, and Zacapa, the Guatemalan army's largest frontier post Capitalise "army's".
Done.
who, according to Gleijeses, was more pliable.[59][62][56] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
Done.
also resigned, and on July 8 Castillo Armas --> "also resigned, and on July 8, Castillo Armas"
Done.
inspection by the United Nations Unlink United Nations.
Done.
who often boasted a sizeable following British sizeable.
Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: All done, I believe. Thanks for the review. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Much of the source-related stuff has been picked up already, but I have a couple of points:

It is very important, from a verification perspective, to provide a numerical identifier for journals etc, particularly those not in English. Castañeda, Figueroa Ibarra, Jiménez and the Life article need ISSN's or similar. Generally these are available from Worldcat. Also, some publications have a location, others do not. Is there a rationale behind this? The sources used seem of good quality and reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: That's a fair point. I've gotten things through FAC without journal identifiers before, but that's not really an argument not to provide additional information, so I've added issns (and an oclc where that was what was available). I've also removed the locations; I don't think they add much, and in the contemporary publishing world they don't mean much either. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: The Alt text viewer shows that you've got three images of note in the article but two have no alt text; can you add it to the other two when you get a chance? Its not a deal breaker but it does help from a uniformity perspective to be one and united instead of some here and some there. Additionally, your external link checker ([2])shows one site that may be redirecting, this needs to be addressed before I can close. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: All done, I think. I've never been very good at alt text, so suggestions are welcome in that respect. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.