Talk:Pat Gros/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 21:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article. Thanks for your contributions!

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
in
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects)): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Initial readthrough

Copyvio check looks good. Made some minor copyediting changes myself, primarily for comma usage. Notes on the first readthrough:

She was drawn to the Summer of Love in San Francisco in 1967, then moved to Portland, Maine where she made a green card marriage to help a German man and took the surname Gros. → She went to San Francisco during the Summer of Love in 1967, then moved to Portland, Maine, where she entered a green card marriage with a German man, taking his last name, Gros. (original wording unclear and a little clunky) Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
rewrote this a bit Mujinga (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]
Gros, Levasseur and the Mannings formed the revolutionary group the Sam Melville / Jonathan Jackson Unit, named for two militants; later they renamed the group the United Freedom Front (UFMujinga (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)F). → Gros, Levasseur and the Mannings formed the Sam Melville / Jonathan Jackson Unit, a revolutionary group named for two militants, [INSERT NAMES OF MILITANTS]. Later they renamed the group the United Freedom Front (UFF). (unclear/clunky wording. Also, I assume the militants are Sam Melville and Jonathan P. Jackson?) Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for some reason i found it awkward when writing this to add the wikilinks, but now it seems ok, thanks for the suggestion Mujinga (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]
They frequently moved house to evade capture by the authorities, living in towns across the states of Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. → They frequently relocated to evade capture by the authorities, living in towns across the states of Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. (MOS:CLICHE) Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not seeing what goes against CLICHE here? Mujinga (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "moved house" is a cliché. It's not entirely clear what it means. Did they literally move between different houses? Or did they just move to different locations? Spookyaki (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wow that's an interesting Br Eng / Us Eng thing! fancy not saying moved house. ok so i'll change to relocate Mujinga (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so! I admit it might be a dialect thing. Spookyaki (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]
In each new location, the gang took up a new false identity; Gros would look after her children and find work as a waitress or a temp, whilst her partner scouted locations for robberies and bombings. → In each new location, the group took up a new false identity; Gros would look after her children and find work as a waitress or a temporary worker, whilst [NAME OF PARTNER, IF APPLICABLE] scouted locations for robberies and bombings. (MOS:UNUSE, WP:TONE; also, is it possible to get more specific? What were the locations? What did they do in each? Also, does partner refer to Levasseur or some sort of unspecified partner in crime?) Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes Levasseur is the partner, like you would say husband if they were married Mujinga (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, got it. It's a bit confusing to me because "partner" in the context of somebody committing a crime could refer to an accomplice rather than a romantic partner. Spookyaki (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I do think this should be clarified, maybe by putting "romantic partner" or just using his name. Spookyaki (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we could get more specific, but I'm not sure if it adds much and it becomes a huge list, that's why I just gave the list of states which is already a lot Mujinga (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think it would add anything to the article, then I guess that's fine. We can keep it as is. Spookyaki (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]

they did the same thing in each location Mujinga (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is temp not clear enough? to me that's accepted usage and it's temporary worker that sounds odd Mujinga (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Maybe it's fine. I probably shouldn't have made that change. It seems somewhat informal to me, but doesn't necessarily violate any good article criteria and may ultimately just be a personal preference. Spookyaki (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]
Like Carol Manning, who also had children whilst underground, Gros came to see bringing up kids as more important than carrying out direct action. — Is it possible to add attribution to this claim? Without it, this comes off as potentially editorializing/WP:OR. Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's cited to Burrough already - the relevant bit being:

Not long after arriving, Pat Gros discovered she was pregnant again. For reasons she only dimly understood, she was swept by waves of relief. “I was in denial a lot of the time, pretending that none of this was real,” she recalls today. “I only figured out years later why I kept getting pregnant, and why it made me so happy. It was the only way I had to not get more involved. If I was pregnant, they couldn’t ask me to rob a bank.” Pat seldom shared her doubts with Ray, but it was clear both she and Carol Manning were at best ambivalent about their lives underground. A rare airing of these feelings occurred in Waterbury. As Pat recalls, “Tommy came to me and said, ‘Carol’s been talking, she doesn’t want to do this anymore.’ He had a question about how effective we were being. I said, ‘Well, yeah, look outside. There’s not a lot of people wanting a revolution. There’s nobody.’ And he said, ‘Do you think this is even worth doing?’ I had to admit, I agreed with him.”

In that case, maybe writing it as:

According to Gros, both she and Carol Manning started to feel that raising children was more important than engaging in direct action during this period.

Or something like that. Spookyaki (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion, went with "According to Gros, both she and Carol Manning started to feel that raising children was more important than engaging in direct action" Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

[reply]

After being arrested with Cameron Bishop (who was on the list of FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives) as they prepared to carry out a heist, Levasseur skipped bail and was himself added to the list in 1976. — Were just Bishop and Levasseur involved in this incident or was Gros involved as well? Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes it was just the two men Mujinga (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure what to do about this one. It does seem relevant to Gros, since it's related to her eventual arrest, but I'm not really sure how to clarify that she wasn't involved here in a non-awkward way. If you can think of something, maybe try clarifying, but it's probably also fine as is. Spookyaki (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]
Since they were living nearby, it necessitated a move to Derby. — "It" being what? Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the bank robbery in the previous sentence Mujinga (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So they went to Derby to rob the bank or they ran away to Derby after robbing the bank? Was it the robbery itself or the potential police scrutiny that caused the move? Spookyaki (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the "frequently relocated to evade capture by the authorities" in action, it seems they were proactive in moving, although you'd have to question whether constant movement was not in itself suspicious and why they robbed places near to where they lived. The bank was in Waterbury, Connecticut and they moved to Derby. I've hopefully clarified this Mujinga (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After bombing the Mobil Oil offices in 1979, the UFF went silent until 1981 and Gros had her third daughter in 1980. — After bombing the Mobil Oil offices in 1979, the UFF ceased activity until 1981, and Gros had her third daughter in 1980. (MOS:CLICHE) Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
rewritten Mujinga (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]
After the FBI became aware that Gros and Levasseur had children, their photographs were added to the wanted posters; this move was condemned by Psychology Today. — To be clear, it was Gros and Levasseur's children's photos that were added to the wanted posters? Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes they added the kids pictures to the wanted posters for the adults Mujinga (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really think of a graceful way to do this, but:

After the FBI became aware that Gros and Levasseur had children, their photographs were added to the wanted posters; this move was condemned by Psychology Today. → After the FBI became aware that Gros and Levasseur had children, the children's photographs were added to the wanted posters; this move was condemned by Psychology Today.

Maybe this (or something like it) is preferable for clarity's sake. The pronoun use makes the sentence unclear. Spookyaki (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
rewritten Mujinga (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]
The Mannings fled from their house and stayed underground until the following year, when they were arrested after being traced from the serial numbers on a gun. — Unclear what exactly happened here. How did the serial numbers lead to their arrest? Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the source says:

The Mannings initially evaded the roundup, but were eventually traced via the serial numbers on a gun seized in the raid on the Cleveland address and captured, along with their children, on April 24, 1985.Mujinga (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, maybe try something like:

The Mannings fled from their house and stayed underground until the following year, when they were arrested after police traced them using the serial numbers on a gun they found during [a/the] raid on the Cleveland house.

Or something like that. Spookyaki (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added about Cleveland Mujinga (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

[reply]

The children were then passed to welfare despite family members offering to take them. — Passed to who? CPS? Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not being from the US, I can only go on the source, which says:

Afterwards, they were turned over to welfare department officials despite the fact that a number of relatives — none accused of any crime, and all gainfully employed — lived in the area and expressed their willingness to take them in. Mujinga (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think it would be most precise to just say:

The children were then passed to the welfare department despite family members offering to take them.

Since no specific federal/state welfare department is named. Spookyaki (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rewritten Mujinga (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

[reply]

I assume the answer is no, and a cursory Google search doesn't yield any, but I assume there are just no images of Gros to use for this article? Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes I haven't been able to source one Mujinga (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, no worries. Figured that was the case. Spookyaki (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]

Not required for GA, but other recommended adjustments:

Including page numbers for the Burroughs book would be nice. Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was using an ebook (as noted in the ref) and sadly no page numbers Mujinga (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Understood. Spookyaki (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]
It eventually featured participants from the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and police from the states of Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania. → It eventually featured participants from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and police from the states of Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania. (for consistency with the rest of the acronyms in the article) Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sure! Mujinga (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consistent use of the word "whilst" is a bit odd, maybe inconsistent with WP:TONE. Spookyaki (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not sure why it would be against TONE? but in any case, four in a short time is unreasonable so I've written a few out, thanks for spotting! Mujinga (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Whilst" strikes me as an archaism, (like "thee" or "thou") but maybe that's just in my regional dialect of English. Spookyaki (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the explanation, i seem to recall other editors not liking "whilst" as well, that must be why. funny, because to me it seems quite normal usage, but since the article i feel should be in USEng since it's about a US individual, there are still two "whilst"s left, could you suggest another word that reads more normal for you? Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would typically just use "while". Spookyaki (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will perform a spot check in a bit, but for now, I would say that the article has some prose issues (though not insurmountable, as long as they're not WP:CLOP, which will be determined by spot check). Going to put it on hold.

Spot check, second read

Fn 1 should have a more complete citation. I'm not sure exactly what's being cited. Maybe add a link if you've got one. Spookyaki (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a magazine, that's all I got for it Mujinga (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it this article? Spookyaki (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes! added link Mujinga (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]
They went underground... — The specific reasons for this seem to be important. The book suggests someone was assaulted, which seems like a relevant detail to add. Also "went underground" is potentially MOS:CLICHE and doesn't quite get across what they did. What exactly did they do? Did they go into hiding? If so, where? Spookyaki (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes I remember when writing this being surprised there wasn't a useful link - Underground culture (disambiguation) doesn't suggest much. going underground is precisely what they did, alongside many other activists. they lived under fake names and dropped all their previous contact with friends and family. this to me is all quite obvious but does it need to be explained more? 18:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think in the interest of precision, it makes sense to explain further. I think "going underground" could mean several different things, including the things you listed, but possibly excluding some/including others. Spookyaki (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd check wikitionary which has it as a US/Canadian term?! I've added the link. Hope that works! Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

[reply]

...under the name BOSLUC. — It should probably be explained what BOSLUC means specifically. Spookyaki (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
haha it's such a stupid acronym I didn't want to explain it but you're right it should be, done :) Mujinga (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it kinda is huh? But yeah, agreed, it probably should. Spookyaki (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]
By this point, Gros had already spent three and a half years in jail before being released on probation; the new trial collapsed and she did not receive any additional sentence.[14] — This information is on pages 112-113 in my copy. Is it different in yours? Also, what does it mean that the trial collapsed? This should probably be elaborated on. Spookyaki (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that's a typo. I think 113 covers it? At least in Br Eng, a trial collapsing means the prosecution argument falls apart and the trial is abandoned Mujinga (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would then be preferable to explain the specific way the trial collapsed rather than just saying that it collapsed. Spookyaki (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, the churchill and vanderwall say:

In the end, after a trial lasting ten months (February-November 1989), costing more than $10 million, and in which nearly 250 witnesses took the stand, the jury acquitted the three remaining defendants - Ray Luc and Pat Gros Levasseur, and Richard Williams-of both charges on November 27,1989

.. so I was wrong originally to say the trial collapsed! I've edited to reflect the acquital, it's good that you queried this. Also I should add that the original source, Burrough, says:

Finally, on November 27, 1989, the jury returned not-guilty verdicts on most of the counts. Two days later the judge declared a mistrial when jurors said they were deadlocked on the remaining charges. All of the defendants, except Patricia Gros (who had already served 3 1/2 years for harboring a fugitive and was now out on bail), were returned to prison as quickly as possible so they wouldn't miss any more of their taxpaye provided college classes.Mujinga (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]

Otherwise, spot check looks good. I'll give you some time to respond, but this looks like it could get to GA with some work. Let me know if you have any questions!

Spookyaki thanks for taking on the review, I think I've answered on everything and I see you replying so I'll leave you to it, then check back later. Cheers :) Mujinga (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now replied to everything again Mujinga (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third read

Getting close, made a few more minor adjustments myself. Only things left outstanding:

Clarification of the term "partner," both in the lead and in the "Underground" section.
Whilst → While (not strictly necessary, so will pass even if this doesn't go through).
The lead still says the trial "collapsed," which is apparently not what happened. Spookyaki (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]