Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Union of Freedom Fighters/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 16 May 2021 [1].

National Union of Freedom Fighters

[edit]
Nominator(s): Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a revolutionary group in Trinidad and Tobago in the 1970s. Because most of their leadership was killed, their story was largely untold until after 2000. When I created this article in 2005 the two sentence summary was all I knew, and almost all the attention they received in most sources. Times have changed, and I think this is an episode in our history that's worth documenting. It's been a long time since I've nominated a FAC, but I think it's a viable, and interesting candidate. Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Moisejp

[edit]

I'm going to review this. The article's short length is manageable for my current schedule. Moisejp (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First read-through:

  • The prose is engaging.
  • Inconsistency throughout the article about whether to have a comma after phrases such as "In 1969" and "In February 1970" at the beginning of the sentence.
    I think I got them all. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • When I'm doing leads I try to (more or less) give a proportional amount of the text to the amount of text in each section. There doesn't currently seem to be anything in the lead from Background and formation, even through it's a full five paragraphs of text. I haven't specifically checked the other sections, and am not sure how proportional the lead is for them. What would you think about considering going through and making the lead somewhat more proportional?
    Good point. I've rounded off the lead a little more. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure what precisely "improved intelligence capabilities" in the lead is referring to in the main text.
    That way my (obviously imperfect) attempt to summarise The possibility of rewards, coupled with the use of harsh interrogation techniques, allowed the police to ambush the northern group at their camp in Valencia on 28 August. Guettarda (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background and formation:

Aftermath:

  • "According to historian and former Black Power activist Brinsley Samaroo, Eric Williams, who remained Prime Minister until his death in 1981, was "decidedly harsh"... " It's a bit awkward to have "[name], [name], who..." Also, it's probably relatively clear that the quotation is Williams' words, but could anybody think (even temporarily) that the "According to [name] ...:" structure would suggest the words are Samaroo's? I don't have any easy solutions off the top of my head, but would you have ideas for fixing at least my first issue, and possibly also my second issue (if you think it's valid)? Moisejp (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for these, Moisejp. I believe I have solved the problem. Guettarda (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there more explanation available about why Samaroo thought Williams' statement was harsh? I understand that the societal issues the rebels were protesting were no doubt valid things to protest, but does the article need more clearly-stated evidence that the police were in fact extremely brutal, and that the rebels' violent measures were the only means they had to bring about change? In itself without extra context, Williams' statement seems a valid point of view. But maybe I'm thinking too much, and the article is not saying Williams was the bad guy, it's simply stating the facts of "Williams said this; Samaroo said that". If so, maybe it would sound more neutral to not frame Williams words around Samaroo's rejection of them. Again, maybe I'm thinking too much here, but I wonder whether even if no bias is intentionally implied, the reader may infer a bias here. Moisejp (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution is actually quite simple: all Samaroo was saying was that unlike his milder criticism of the Black Power movement, Williams was harsh in his criticism of NUFF. But there's a larger problem here - because so little of this exist on Wikipedia, readers can't just click over to other articles to gather more context. I need to think more about how to solve this problem without making the article too broad and diffuse. Guettarda (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology:

  • A few direct quotations in this section seem probably unnecessary to me and could be easily paraphrased, namely: "seemingly anti-sexist"; "had inherited and which, even though the party condemned it, appeared to serve its purposes"; "grew up around members of NUFF"; "traditional roles of cooking and caring". Moisejp (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Trimmed these quotes. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • The Black Power movement is mentioned part way through the Background section, but I believe it's not until the middle of the Guerrilla campaign section that it's explicitly hinted that most or all of the activity between 1970 and 1972 was by "Black radicals" ("Burroughs was seen as a heroic crime-fighter by the middle class and "public enemy number one" by Black radicals"). OK, now I see "Afro-Trinidadians and Tobagonians" is also mentioned early on, but I guess I missed this. I leave it up to you about whether you think it is clear enough or whether it be good to mention a little more explicitly that NJAC and WOLF members were predominantly Black. Moisejp (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serial comma used in "They captured 13 shotguns, a pistol, and ammunition" but not in the next sentence "for Jeffers, Harewood and Jacob". I have a feeling you mostly don't use serial commas but it would be good to have a once-through to make sure it's consistent everywhere. Moisejp (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The possibility of rewards, coupled with the use of harsh interrogation techniques, allowed the police to ambush the northern group at their camp in Valencia on 28 August." Don't know if it's explicitly stated in the source, but I imagine this means the police got information about the group's whereabouts through people coming forward for rewards, and through interrogation, and thus they knew where to ambush the group. If this information is available in the source, it would be better fill in this extra logical step in the text. Moisejp (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NUFF never posed a serious threat to Eric Williams' government." For such a broad statement, would it be better to say something like "Historian Jan Kippers Black has argued that NUFF never posed a serious threat to Eric Williams' government"? Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken the liberty of making this change myself. If it's not precise and needs tweaking, I would strongly urge you to at least include comparable attribution, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have finished my second read-through. When the last points above are addressed I'm expecting to support. I still am not 100% sure there is no small unintended bias towards NUFF as the good guys and Williams as the bad guy, but that's just a vague uncertainty, and I can't put my finger on exactly what would make it so; if no other reviewers think so, I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. (I actually don't have much experience reviewing such political uprising kind of articles, and am not sure what is a normal balance of details when describing insurgencies by an oppressed group.) Moisejp (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: I agree with you about the bias. The problem is that the sources tend to see NUFF sympathetically (seeing them as misguided in their embrace of violence, but not wrong in their broader goal) and Williams less so. Samaroo was active in the Black Power movement, while Meeks arrived in Trinidad just after, and seems to have known NUFF activists. Johnson is probably the most openly partisan of the three of my main sources, seeing NUFF through an anti-imperialist and pro-feminist lens (and Burroughs/Williams/mainstream middle class as the opposite). So while Williams has his admirers, and remains a revered figure among the supporters of the party he founded, broadly speaking, he isn't as well loved among the intellectuals and academics who have chose to write about the period. The problem is that it gets into the "verifiability, not truth" scope of things. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm mostly happy to trust your judgment, and that of any other reviewers who may or may not choose to chime in on this issue. A couple of ideas you could consider before shutting the book on this question: (1) Are there any sources you can add, or citations from existing sources, that present Williams more positively, to present a more balanced picture? The sources maybe wouldn't even need to touch on this particular uprising, but could perhaps just generally talk about his style of governance, or the positive changes he brought about to the country and its people; (2) Without contradicting the existing sources, are there any places in the text where the wording can be tweaked to add neutrality to way details are presented? For the second idea, I have no particular places to suggest, but am just saying that you who are familiar with the content and the sources, may or may not be able to find opportunities for this. Moisejp (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more idea: About what you said about the sources believing NUFF to be "misguided in their embrace of violence, but not wrong in their broader goal", I did get just a glimpse of that in the Legacy section, but I wonder whether it might be valid and beneficial to highlight this point more, maybe even in the lead (i.e., that sympathy historians have had for NUFF has not necessarily included a full support for the degree of violence)? I think if this could be highlighted more, it would bring more balance to the article as a whole. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I couldn't find sources to back up my conclusions. I'm eagerly awaiting the publication of Eric Williams' final book, which thanks to Samaroo will finally see the light of day later this year. Guettarda (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm prepared to support at this time, thanks. I still hope you can look at my final comments above to see if there are any ideas in them that it makes sense to use. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say they are definitely needed, but please consider them. Moisejp (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passed, as per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Approaching three weeks in and this nomination has picked up no general supports. Unless there are signs of a consensus to support developing over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild. So far I'm expecting to support on prose, but I can't promise really until I've done a second thorough read-through to see if any big issues I might have missed the first time around jump out at me. I'm currently 3/4 the way through my first read-through. It hasn't been going speedily, but I can try to pick up the pace as much as I can if it makes any difference for you keeping the nomination open. If I make it through the first read-through finding no big issues, chances are fairly high I won't find any the second read-through. Anyway, I'm not sure if that's enough for you to keep the nomination open a little bit longer, but that's where I'm at with my review. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Have now finished my first read-through. I can try to work more quickly through my second read-through if it makes a difference for keeping the nomination open longer. Moisejp (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to review this soonish too, but not being familiar with the topic, I was hoping to wait until another review was completed first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask for this to be kept open longer, I'd like to take a swing at reviewing it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the experienced reviewers queuing up to have a look at this, consider Damocles' sword to have been removed. Reviewers, feel free to take your time - within reason - and come to a considered opinion. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Just my opinion, but I think it helps to relink things on a first appearance basis in the body text outside of the lede, eg. Eric Williams could be linked again. Same with repeating names in full before reverting to their acronym eg NJAC should be "National Joint Action Committee (NJAC)" on first instance in the background section.
  • In the infobox, one of the predecessors to NUFF is listed as "Block Five", but this isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article.
  • Trinidad and Tobago became independent in 1962 From the UK?
    • UK, British Empire, West Indies Federation...good question :) But the British Parliament did pass the independence act, so United Kingdom is probably the best choice. Added. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume WOLF wanted to overthrow the government because it had some ideology for replacing it and provided its unemployed members with jobs. If it had some defining political characteristics (socialism, Black Power, etc.) that would be nice to mention.
  • In 1971 the as-yet unnamed revolutionary organisation So WOLF collapsed after the Black Power Revolution and its remnants formed this new unnamed group before it was to become NUFF?
  • attacked an Estate Police Station belonging to the American oil company Texaco The capitalization of estate police station makes it sound like something special and unique. Was this Texaco's private security?
    • Yes it was their private security. The Supplemental Police Act of 1906 created the legal framework for "estate police", which were private police forces for sugar estates. Security companies function within this framework. I followed the source in capitalising it, and I seem to remember Texaco Trinidad's security being called that. But as I'm looking into it now, I can't find evidence for this, so I'm going to de-capitalise it. Guettarda (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying that C. L. R. James was a historian/political activist would be helpful.
  • For the references to journal articles with siginificant page ranges, I think it would helpful to mention the specific page from which info was taken, as has been done with the books.

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serail Number 54129

[edit]

Parking my tank on the presidential lawn, as it were. ——Serial 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes SN, but will you be opening fire anytime soon...? If not you might have to wait for the next battle... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'm firing blanks, Ian Rose?! Sorry about the delay, am on the. ——Serial 12:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Formed from": formed out of?
  • "the lead Black Power organisation": the country's leading Black Power organisation?
  • "NUFF was anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist in its ideology, and opposed": Ideologically, UFF was anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist, opposing..."
Back. & for.
  • Why do you use a mixture of inline and not inline page referencing?
  • Probably worth indicating early on the political leanings of the PNM (soc.-dem, nat-lib. etc) at that time. Otherwise, the nature of the post-independence regime is unknown to the reader.
    • You like to ask hard questions, don't you! :) The PNM's ideology was Eric Williams' ideology. Williams was a nationalist (no Mother Africa, no Mother India, just Mother Trinidad and Tobago), anti-imperialist (Mass day done) with an autocratic streak (when I talk not one damn dog speak). Added something, but it's currently clumsily-worded and I'm going to have to massage the phrasing a bit. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Social mobility...intact": There's an unspoken implication here, as you show there were three classes/ethnicities but only explain the mobility of the lower two. The (unspoken) implication is, therefore, that whites did not drop from the ruling class. Since the discussion at this point is pre-independence, I can well believe it, but can the immobility of whites be clarified?
  • Bearing in mind you use percentages here, would it be possible (perhaps in a footnote) to give some idea of the numbers involved?
  • "the working class Afro–Trinidadians": could lose the "the"; in fact, the bit about their being the PNM's support base would probably fit in the section's first sentence where Williams/PNM are introduced. Would shorten this sentence also.
  • "postponed": Is this the word you want here? I think you could recast the sentence more robustly, e,g. "Much of the economy was in the hands of foreign interests, and the PNM saw this as an obstacle in their stated goal of "social, political and economic equality".
  • Link David Lowenthal at first (and only) mention.
  • "In working-class communities, groups of unemployed...": Suggest, to lose the repetition of "communities", "Unemployed ad under-employed young working-class men organised themselves..."
  • "engaged in violence with": well, yeah; in other words, they fought with rival gangs.
  • Reduce WP:SEAOFBLUE betw. Montreal and centre (which is an unnecessarily long link anyway). Perhaps just take "staged" out of the link.
  • Not sure what this final sentence is doing here; it seems somewhat out of place. The demographics of the org. do not seem obviously relevant to the shooting of one of its members? Suggest you break the paragraph at "despite a desire.." as that leads nicely into the first sentence of the next paragraph, which is relevant. I.e., they felt themselves as being too Black, and therefore attempted to draw in others.
  • "After 10 days...control": repetition of government.
  • "According to Malcom...with the mutineers": Holy sentence Batman! Suggest this is split in two, also to remove the repetitive "mutiny".
  • "through armed rebellion.Inspired": needs a space.
  • "recommended that the group": recommended that they. No need for the first "more".
  • Unless you can name who these "more militant members", don't use a definitive article; it reads just as well to state that "more militant members..." etc.
  • Link court-martial.
  • "suppression of the mutiny. Both men survived the shootings": suppression of the mutiny; both men survived.
  • "virtual collapse": if this is a quote, cite it. Having said that, a compound isn't plagiarism. Suggest "disenchanted with what they perceived as the PNM's virtual collapse following the arrest of its leadership".
  • "other NJAC activists from the Port of Spain": recruits from the Port of Spain. Otherwise, you have "activist" three times in less than 20 words.
Guer. camp.
  • Perhaps link "estate" to Sugar plantations in the Caribbean.
    • The estate police (private police of any kind under the Supplemental Police Act of 1906) in this case were protecting oil installations and "camps" where (mostly foreign, mostly white) management lived. By and large the lands managed by Texaco in the "deep south" were never under sugar, but had either been cocoa or forest lands before those were displaced by oil production. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "belonging to the American oil company"
  • "and seized six guns": seizing six guns (also removes a repetitive "and").
  • I'd suggest the bit about Castro be moved to a footnote: it's interesting enough to keep, but isn't directly related to the NUFF's activities at this point. Further to this, if you can, identify when Castro made the suggestion? (Also, add "in 1953".)
  • Three policemen injured would be slightly less ambiguous.
  • "Barclays Bank on Tragarete Road in Port of Spain": the Barclays Bank on Tragarete Road, Port of Spain, was robbed".
  • Five men and a woman.
  • "who took": didn't they steal?
  • And a security guard's revolver.
  • "ambushed a group of NUFF members at a safe house in Laventille later that day. Four NUFF members were killed including Beddoe": ambushed a group of NUFF at a Laventville safe house later that day. Four, including Beddoe, were killed.
  • Has Brian Meeks stopped considering Beddoe's death to be a major blow, etc?
  • Link Textel.
  • "the satellite link connecting Trinidad and Tobago with the outside world": sounds like T&T was the Lost World"! How about something like "T&T's international satellite link"?
  • Police first responders came under attack by the guerillas but managed to injure four of them?
  • Wouldn't Burrough's be even more popular with the white ruling class than the coloured middle class?
    • I can't say (I don't have sources for that) but I suspect not. For local whites, Burroughs was probably too much of a showman, a braggart, and a bit too thuggish. And for the expats, well, he was Black. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 7 August ": the following day.
  • No need for 2nd "insurgents" ("a group of nine attacked").
  • "attacked the Matelot Police Station": attacked Matelot Police Station?
  • You mention the officer being released, but not his capture; how about "Along with the policeman, they captured 13 shotguns..."
  • "harsh interrogation techniques": is this the actual word used by the source? E.g., if the source uses the word "brutal", it would not be NPOV to use it. Just wondering!
    • Meeks says "increasingly repressive measures undertaken by the police to force suspects to reveal information". I assume he means "brutal", but it's not the words he uses. I've rephrased it to use his words.
  • Also "the possibility of rewards" is a little vague; it sounds as if they launched counter-raids in the hope of one. Obvs you mean that the rewards were intended to garner information on the NUFF positions, etc., but don't actually say so. How effective were they—how many people took them up?
    • Good question. Meeks talks about the carrot and stick (rewards + repression), and Terrance Thornhill, a former NUFF guerrilla told Meeks "So it was that kind of thing, where police were on our heels, people were selling us out and we just running from ambush to ambush." Guettarda (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the shift in tactics by the police": the police's change in tactics? Simpler.
  • An NUFF sentry.
  • "Kenneth Tenia and Beverly Jones (Jennifer Jones' sister)": You could probably get away with "Kenneth Tenia and Jennifer's sister Beverly", and save a plethora of Joneses.
  • Why did the fate of the Jones sisters have international implications, compared to the other deaths which did not? (If the source doesn't say, no problem, but if it does, it would be worth clarifying.)
    • I think it was a combination of their age and gender (Beverly was 17 when she was killed); they fit well with the narrative of an out-of-control, brutal goverment. Then there was the fact that their sister led the British Black Panthers and had worked with Selma James (who was married to CLR James). I don't think Johnson explicitly says this, but the breadcrumbs are all there (I mentioned Altheia Jones-LeCointe largely to replicate some of those breadcrumbs). Guettarda (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amath
  • "NUFF was only the second group": to whom?
  • "Eric Williams...was critical in his assessment of NUFF": Hints of WP:MANDY. After all, they were trying to at least remove him from power, if not assassinate him. His opinion, esp. with a long quote, verging on undue?
    • This is a great observation, because it points out something important that's missing from the article - Williams was an historian with a strongly anti-imperialist bent, quite an important figure (see Capitalism and Slavery). It's one of those things that's obvious to me, and entirely missing from the conversation for everyone else. Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their decision to engage in an armed struggle..." etc, perhaps, "Meeks has argued that"? I'm not sure if in WP's voice, we should attempt to read the minds of Williams's govt. (I note that every other opinion in this section is cited inline, you see.)
  • "Other members of NUFF played": "Ex-members of NUFF played...", since presumably, the org was by now defunct.
    • Defunct in terms of its ability to carry out an insurgent campaign, yes, but the source I cite here (John LaGuerre) approvingly cites this quote from Selwyn Ryan: " In addition to the radical trade unions, the ULF served as a holding company for the micro-sectarian groups such as...the National Union of Freedom Fighters". So while I don't know, this source suggests that there were still activist capable of speaking for the group. Guettarda (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ideo.
  1. Into revolutionary thinking, not towards it! What's the point in entering the door, Vladimir, if you do not open it?
  2. "Believing that revolution as imminent": think you're missing a "w". But notwithstanding, suggest "believing revolution to be imminent"
  • Does the source actually call it an "extreme version of the foco theory"? To my eye, it's a replication of it, and it's hard to see how it was more "extreme"—either in ideology or armed struggle—than anything the M-26-7 did.
  • "Kirkland Paul wrote 'Our just...'": l/c "o".
  • You know, I think this first para could be incorporated into the background section (perhaps with its own header): the reader would surely find it useful to discover the ideology of a group before it begins bombing and shooting than afterwards! The remainder of the section could be titled Historiography, as it's less on how the NUFF saw themselves and more on how they have been discussed in the scholarship.
Leg.
  • "Political scientists have drawn connections NUFF's insurgency and the 1990": missing a (presumed) "between".
  • "Their use of violence to challenge": The NUFF's use of violence", as the previous entity referred to is the Jamaat.
  • "Their use of violence to challenge": in challenging".
  • If Omowale/Thomas was a leading figure in the NUFF, why have we not already encountered him I wonder.
    • He's mentioned in Aftermath in his death sentence for the murder of Austin Sankar (and subsequent pardon). His supporters seem to have considered him and Paul to have been framed for Sankar's murder, but I can't find anything in a source I'd consider approaching an RS. NUFF's leadership was dead before their story was written, I think, and no one has written a comprehensive account (there's almost no analysis, for example, of the propaganda they produced), or really looked at them critically. I hope David Millette will produce something like this eventually. Guettarda (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jennifer Jones-Kernahan (formerly Jennifer Jones)": Suggest "née Jones"; can't avoid the Joneses but can reduce the Jennifers!
Notes
Bloody good article, thanks for doing so much work on it, it's an extremely interesting—and unsurprisingly rarely discussed—slice of history. ——Serial 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A busy time at work and other demands (Spring, my garden) slowed this down a bit, but I think I've gotten to everything here Serial Number 54129. Thanks so much for this extremely detailed and helpful review. Guettarda (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Link Trinidad and Tobago and other terms now only linked in the intro at first mention in the article body too?
  • "Afro-Trinidadians and Tobagonians" Anything to link?
  • "was "a postponement of social, political and economic equality" It is often good to attribute direct quotes in-text.
  • Link Port of Spain? Montreal?
  • You mention it was rooted in the black power movement, then a mutiny and shooting of some figures. Was the army and other government organs dominated by white people? If there was such an aspect, could maybe be mentioned for context.
    • The seeming paradox of Black Power in Trinidad was that it was an uprising of Black people against a Black government. There were two prominent white or near-white Cabinet ministers - John O'Halloran and Gerard Montano - and I believe the head of the Coast Guard was white. But the major cogs of the economy - the oil industry, the sugar industry, the banks - were owned by British, Canadian or American multinationals, while the local big business and the best jobs (outside the government service) were largely in the hands of white and near-white Trinidadians. Guettarda (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is maybe something worth explaining in the article for context? If the relevant sources do, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added some to that effect. Guettarda (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may answer the question above, but comes very far down " and said that they differed from NJAC in seeing class, not race, as the dominant problem in society." So I wonder if it could help with more historical context/background at the beginning of the article, not sure. Perhaps go more into demographics of the country? As you mention Black Power grew among one segment of the population, what other segments were there, and were they ethnic or just class based? FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to expand on this. There's more I could add, of course (and one day I hope to create "race and ethnicity in Trinidad and Tobago"). I'm concerned that adding too much more might start to get into WEIGHT problems. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you've added should be enough, and is great for understanding the context. FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few unanswered points left I'm waiting for. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • It feels quite basic perhaps, but I would certainly link Marxist in the opening sentence.
  • This source (one of very very few to even mention "Western United Liberation Front" has the abbreviation (logically I suppose) as WULF.
  • "the failed mutiny" the previous para mentioned a failed uprising and a mutiny, is this the same mutiny, i.e. were both the uprising and the mutiny failed?
  • Which ENGVAR? "organizational" vs "organised"?
  • "established a presence in south Trinidad where they established" established ... established...
  • Not strictly this article but the infobox near the top (Social unrest in Trinidad and Tobago) should have a capital M for Arena Massacre, and an en-dash and century for year range (i.e. 1934–1939).
  • "working class Black" the working class should be hyphenated and Black is already linked (to Afro–Trinidadians and Tobagonians) above.
  • "Education, especially university education" education education...
  • Although this sentence doesn't seem specific to this article on NUFF, it's a truism in general, no?
    • It wasn't meant to be. Hall's point is that the Caribbean wasn't South Africa - even in 19th century Trinidad it was possible for the occasional Black man to achieve higher status that the average mix person thanks to education. But it was still the exception to a general pattern (one that still held well enough when I was growing up that exceptions stood out.) Tried to rework it to convey this; hopefully I didn't bungle it. Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discriminatory grading practices that resulted in a fire and substantial property damage" the grading practices created a fire?
  • "resulted in ... resulting " repetitive.
  • "youth in Port of Spain and" overlinked.
  • "based of the movement" doesn't read right for me?
  • "the army mutiny. When the mutiny" quickly repetitive again, a few of these.
  • "writings of Che Guevara and Régis Debray" while Che may be well known, I'm not so sure about Debray, worth some context here explaining why the writings of these individuals may have been interesting.
  • "group including John Beddoe recommended" commas either side of "including John Beddoe" (and who was he?)
  • "David Bloom was shot" also shot.
  • "organisation's virtual collapse" perhaps "apparent" rather than "virtual"?
  • "the foco theory revolution" what is this?
  • "by Régis Debray and Che Guevara" no need to repeat their first names.
  • "rough ... roughly" in the same sentence and meaning different things needs refinement.
  • "from which Castro had" -> "from which he had", it's unambiguous.
  • ""a gunfight occurred" I'd go for ensued, or took place, sounds more active.
  • "who stole TT$100,000" any chance of converting this to a currency with which more people are commensurate?
    • Since the TT$ was still tied to sterling at the time, it was easy enough. But trying to convert that to modern currency? I didn't even bother trying to convert it to modern TT$, but trying to convert it to modern US$ gave $280k, while doing the same for sterling gave me £330k. Anyway, sterling equivalent added. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "police, led by Assistant Superintendent of Police" is "of Police" really necessary?
  • I would link transformer.
  • "as a heroic crime-fighter" this doesn't feel like encyclopedic tone, perhaps it's a quote?
  • ""officer was on duty. They captured the policeman, 13 shotguns" ->" officer was on duty, who they captured along with 13 shotguns"
    • Thanks, yes, that helps. Plus removed "officer", which was a slip on my part ("officer" is an Americanisation; the person would almost certainly have been a constable). Guettarda (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " British Black Panther Movement, " Movement was part of their formal name, so "movement" or just "British Black Panthers".
  • I think "older" should be "elder".
  • "18–22 NUFF members and three" MOSNUM, comparable numbers all numerals or all words.
  • "being Henry's rebellion in Jamaica" year for context?
  • "researched[24] and wrote" never keen on terrifying ref placement like this, I'm certain our readers can wait until some natural break before seeking evidence that he "researched" (and not being worried that he "wrote"!)
  • "Victoria Pasley described..." who? context.
  • Ref 21, avoid SHOUTING in the title.
  • ISBNs should be consistently presented.
  • Ref 23 doesn't have an access date.

That's all I have on a first read. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/National_Union_of_Freedom_Fighters/archive1&oldid=1023439700"