Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Salute è in voi/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 February 2023 [1].

La Salute è in voi

Nominator(s): czar 20:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

25¢
"An indispensable pamphlet for those comrades who love self-instruction"
"Mere possession of this wicked treatise would suggest that the owner was up to no good."
"The great unmentioned fact" of the Sacco-Vanzetti case
"If any of the bombers used La Salute as their textbook (and there is no evidence that they did), it proved inadequate ... None of the [their] bombs ever reached their intended targets ... They injured only bystanders or themselves."

Probably the first bomb-making handbook at FAC, this little article is a complete treatment of the subject and its weaponization from all of its major sources. After a review by @Asilvering last year, I haven't found any further improvements to make. I believe it meets the criteria. Looking forward to your consideration, czar 20:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"It also includes safety procedure" => "It also includes safety procedures"
"The handbook treated its measurements like a farmer's almanac by giving potential household uses for chemicals" - is it really the "measurements" that were treated like an almanac? I don't get this sentence......
"but otherwise lacking occupational access to dynamite and the practical experience in bomb-making" => "but otherwise lacking occupational access to dynamite and practical experience in bomb-making"
"La Salute è in voi did not contain complex formula" => "La Salute è in voi did not contain complex formulae"
refs after "if not the full book" are not in order
same with refs after "printed by the newspaper on its back page"
"depicting Ravachol" - could you give context to who he was? Just saying "depicting French anarchist Ravachol" would suffice
There's no reason to have brackets round the whole sentence beginning "(Though during". Lose the brackets and change the first word to "although"
"After Sacco and Vanzetti were denied appeal" - again, give context as to who these men were
Also no need to wikilink their names twice in the paragraph
"to avoid appearance that" => "to avoid the appearance that"
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @ChrisTheDude. Appreciate the review and I believe I've addressed your bullets. The refs out of order are intentional so as to list the most relevant ref first. czar 09:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I have always understood that multiple refs placed together should always be in numerical order, but try as I might, I can't find any MOS page that actually says that. So maybe it's actually no big deal. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

Comment: I verified all the refs when I did the GA review. No major changes since then. -- asilvering (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Link anarchist? (Or is that considered overlinking?)
For some translated titles—such as Cronaca Sovversiva (Subversion Chronicle)—you italicise both original and translation; for others—such as Guerra all’oppressore (War Against Oppressors)—you don't. I'm not sure of the MOS stance on this, but consistency either way would be best.
"defendents'": " defendants'"?
There's a couple of hidden notes you should probably remove at some point too.

Hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SchroCat. Addressed those. The italics is tricky because it depends whether the handbook is a creative work. I'm going to err on the side that it is, per its source. czar 06:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A final suggestion from me (your call on it either way): you can link both Ettore Molinari and Luigi Galleani in the image caption should you want to.
Support from me – interesting article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review... All WP needs is a Featured Article on a bomb-making handbook but let's live dangerously... ;-)

Completed my habitual copyedit so let me know if you think I messed up anything -- no outstanding queries re. the prose.
Content-wise, seems succinct yet comprehensive, and neutral in tone.
I'll take Nikki's image review as read.

Source review

Nothing leaps out re. reliability.
Formatting-wise:
- If you're going to link one publisher (i.e. Princeton University Press) you may as well link all you can (or none at all).
- I don't think there's any need to include OCLC when you have ISBN, and it's not done consistently anyway.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ian Rose. Appreciate the edits, which look good, and addressed the rest. czar 05:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, is that a source review pass and a general support? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, yes it is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.