Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Gaetano Bresci/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaetano Bresci

[edit]

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.

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to submit it for Featured Article Candidacy. Last year I contributed to the expansion of this article, culminating in a successful Good Article Nomination, which was reviewed by Mujinga. Since then most of my adjustments have been minor, dedicated to tightening up citation formatting and improving the quality of the images. Now I am confident it is ready for FAC, but before I submit it, I would like to hear what my peers have to say about this article. If you can offer any comments, suggestions and/or critiques, I'd be more than happy to see about putting them into action.

Thanks, --Grnrchst (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Grnrchst, I'll be taking this one up.

This is all for now. There may be more refinements I may have passed over, so I will go through the page once again after you make the changes you find reasonable. Looking forward to your response. Matarisvan (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One point which must be clarified: who were the other Italian anarchists Bresci returned to Italy with? Anyone notable, do we have some names? Matarisvan (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: These were Nicola Quintavalle, Antonio Laner, and Emma Quazza. None of them are notable enough to have articles on the Italian Wikipedia or even Wikidata entries, so I just went with "other Italian anarchists" per summary style. Pernicone does give details about them, if they need adding to the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think putting the names in a footnote would be best, this way the main body won't get congested. I believe FA reviewers will ask for the names. Matarisvan (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they play some recurring role in Bresci's story or are independently notable (and they aren't, per Grnrchst), it's trivia, and I don't think they need to be mentioned anywhere. Is it clear why they came on the trip (did they know what he was going to do?) Otherwise I'd just minimize the fact that they came along. czar 14:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They all seemed to just be returning to their home country after time away. Pernicone notes that there were at least 66 other Italians on board that ship, Bresci just became a travelling companion of the three anarchists he happened to meet on board. They didn't know what he was going to do; according to Quazza, Bresci didn't express any violent machinations to them nor did he even talk much about politics with them. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would suggest you don't add the footnote. But perhaps you should consider not mentioning this fact at all, as @Czar has also suggested. I would suggest changing the 'Bresci travelled with a few Italian anarchists, arriving in Le Havre' to 'Bresci landed at Le Havre'. You could use variants for landed too, like deboarded or embarked. Matarisvan (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the specific literature he read, I think we have resolved all the other issues in the article. I may not be able to recognize any more issues, so you should get a second opinion. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Grnrchst, I am done with the review and have no other comments. You should get a second opinion here. If I have been helpful in this PR, could I ask you for a GAR as quid pro quo? I've nominated J. Sai Deepak for GA, if you do it you could get some more WikiCup points. Please let me know if this request is alright, because asking for favors seems so unbecoming. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Thanks so much for the review, it was very helpful! I don't think it's unbecoming to ask other editors look at your work. Although I will say, if I opened a GA review of this article, I would have to quick fail it, as it doesn't meet GA criteria for stability. There's clearly an ongoing edit dispute and I think this needs to be resolved first. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, don't know why I forgot to mention this: you should link to the articles on Paul Hofmann, Carl Levy and Stephen Gundle. I am also going through the hits for Gaetano Bresci om TWL, I will let you know if I find something not mentioned here. Matarisvan (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While going through the TWL hits, I found citations for Bresci's influence on Ercole Vidari, Emma Goldman and Luigi Galleani, as well as Bresci's act leading to the Italian government establishing a foreign intel network and European governments asking the US to surveil its ethnic anarchists. All this was on the first tab, the others had much more. I wonder why you haven't added these details, I'm assuming you do have TWL access. Matarisvan (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming TWL is The Wikipedia Library, yes I do have access to it. I'll have a look through these sources and see what to add. Thanks for pointing them out. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On going through these, it seems like a lot of it is rather trivial information. I'll try to glean something from it but I'm not sure it'll lead to any drastic changes. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have been through every source in the Wikipedia library and added the information I felt was relevant.[1] Frankly I don't think the effort I put into this supplementary research was proportional to the quality of the information added. Most of this information is trivial. The vast majority of the sources in TWL had nothing deep or meaningful to add to the subject. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but most reviewers will check TWL and see if you have missed some sources. Btw, in a TWL source, I saw Jensen 2014 cited, pages 213-4, for the fact that the Italian governement established foreign intel networks to track radicalists. Are you open to including that? Matarisvan (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm looking through Jensen's book now. There's definitely more information to add from it. Will update when I have. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Ok, I've now added more stuff from Jensen, which has expanded the legacy section quite a bit. I may have to cut down on some stuff. Let me know what you think. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, I think trimming will only have to be grammatical or sequential, and content won't have to be cut down. Matarisvan (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added links. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, the article seems to be in much better shape for FAR now. I would suggest you close this PR and nominate for FAC now. Btw I withdrew the GAC I wanted help with, the conflict escalated and I had to request an RfC so a GAR can't happen till that closes. Matarisvan (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for reviewing this! This has been very helpful. I hope you can resolve the conflict on that other article soon. All the best. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Grnrchst, some minor comments on issues I overlooked: Kemp 2018 has a different ISBN format than the others, the Further Reading section ISBNs are all in different formats and two of these sources are missing publisher locations. Also, you could consider linking to Jay Robert Nash and Oscar Mondadori. That's all from me. Matarisvan (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by czar

[edit]
  • Hi @Grnrchst, I had this on my list to review. If you'd like, let me know if you prefer a review here prior to FAC and I can prioritize it. I want to make sure all of your FAC noms go in with at least one support (i.e., from me) so no more repeats of what you went through last time. :) czar 00:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Czar: Hey, that's very kind of you, thank you. I can reopen the discussion for now if you'd still like to review it. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the following are rhetorical questions—they are "out loud" thoughts I had while reading that do not need to be addressed per se but represent places where the writing could be more clear or resolute in articulating aspects of the subject. In my experience, great FACs have writing that gets out of the reader's way and preemptively answers questions, so the more I don't have to stop while reading, the more I can focus on enjoying the article. I see a review as more for you and the article than for my own checklist so don't feel the need to respond point by point unless you want.

Overall

  • Note that I make edits directly and describe it in the edit summary as being a generally better practice for page history than writing it out here for someone else to make the same direct edit without the edit summary context
  • Scope: As I read, I kept wondering whether this article was more about Bresci or about the Assassination of Umberto I. On one hand, there is biographical detail specific to Bresci that justifies a standalone article, but the whole rest of the article and much of the legacy pertains to the act of the assassination and not the man himself. We had similar discussions around Alexandros Schinas and I still go back and forth on how best to scope that. My understanding based on WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E is that likely there should be both—that the assassination is the noteworthy event and if there is enough material that would not satisfactorily fit into the event article, then we'd split out an article on the perpetrator in summary style. I don't know the answer here but wanted to raise it.
    • This is something I also thought about while writing the article. I figured that if there is to be a dedicated article about the assassination, it would end up being a lot longer than the section in this article, including more details from various different perspectives. (Italian Wikipedia has its own article about the assassination at Regicidio di Umberto I [it]) I did try to keep this article focused on Bresci himself the best I could. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • How would the scope of that article differ? Prior attempts (Giovanni Passannante), commemmorations of Umberto I, and the assassination in popular culture, but is there any major detail on the assassination, trial, and political legacy that isn't already covered in this one? czar 16:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Hard to say right now because I haven't written it, but there is almost certainly stuff in sources focused on Umberto and the Italian monarchy/state that hasn't made its way in here. As I said, I tried to keep the focus of this article on Bresci, whereas an article on the assassination would provide a broader view of the affair (and probably less biographical information on Bresci). --Grnrchst (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sectioning: Usually in biographies like this, the 3rd level sections would be reorganized as 2nd levels, since they have the same weight. Removing redundant sections also makes the scope of the article clearer, i.e., is Early life really just Background on the assassination and is his Death better described as the event's Aftermath
  • There are some parts that are written vaguely that could be more definitive about its vague parts. He became radicalized by his experiences of exploitation in the workplace and joined the Italian anarchist movement at the age of 15. Was he radicalized by his colleagues, by seeing his employer take advantage of his peers, or do we not know? If the latter, the cause of his radicalization can be more specific: He became radicalized into anarchism during his time as a weaver. Same with "joined"—did he join a meeting or a group? Or did he start self-identifying around that time? There's room to be more specific so the reader is asking follow-up questions and not questions about what you mean.
    • As I noted above, Kemp attributes his radicalisation to "the treatment that was inflicted on many of his peers", while Pernicone & Ottanelli say it was due to the "exploitation he observed and experienced firsthand as a factory worker." How can I be more specific with this? The room there is to expand here is actually about a completely different thing noted by Jensen, Pernicone & Ottanelli: that at the age of 22, Bresci was arrested for shouting at police that had fined a young shop boy. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was it just in factories or more broadly in society? If this is all we know, it's okay to keep broad and attribute. "Historians broadly attribute his radicalization to the explotation he observed on the factory floor. He joined the Italian anarchist movement ..." czar 16:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand why this detail needs to be attributed, it's a very simple fact. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also Simon (p. 18) primarily credits the Bresci family's economic difficulties for his radicalization, which stemmed from Italy's social order and worker exploitation. He cites Pernicone & Ottanelli and Kemp. czar 18:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Per below, I don't have access to Simon, so can't comment on its accuracy. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of unsolved deaths in the "See also" but he isn't in the related category: Is his death unsolved or not?

Early life

Extended content
  • He was exiled but also imprisoned? Why not just the latter then?
    • Bresci was actually sentenced to Domicilio coatto [it] (forced residence), a measure introduced by the Crispi government which involved internally exiling political prisoners. In this case, "imprisoned" is actually incorrect. I've attempted to correct this. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these groups are short-lived. If the Right to Existence group involved Bresci in its founding or folded after his departure, would be good to note but only if relevant.
  • This last paragraph all took place within a year? Without context, it read like it was over multiple years. I was looking up with La Questione Sociale was created to try to time this Paterson era. E.g., he left the group quite soon yet was involved in the publication enough to play a role in its founding and to receive money from it for his trip back to Italy?
    • I'm not sure how it reads as though it happened over multiple years. I'm a little confused by this comment. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a lot to join a group, found a newspaper, become prolific and known as a firebrand, and leave it within the same year. If phrased as him becoming prolific during his brief time with the newspaper, that would give a better sense of his time with it. Otherwise prolific usually implies a longer time span, no? I've rephrased and think it is okay as is since it sets the time frame upfront now. czar 16:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Rephrasing looks good. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination

Extended content
  • The massacre could use more context—were they protesting as workers, peasants, or citizens? And what were they protesting that would warrant that response
  • The article makes it sound like the chief had a duty to report to the interior ministry and did not. Did he break policy or did he just not take a commonsense move? The latter begs the question of why he didn't then. There's a difference between what historians suggest might have been helpful for security practices (in retrospect) and what was the era's actual expectation of police chiefs. Did he have the ability to confiscate Bresci's passport? How "free" was Bresci to practice his aim? I've modified it as I'm assuming there is no causative effect between the chief's permission and Bresci refining his firearms practice.
    • He was breaking policy, per Pernicone & Ottanelli: "The police chief also failed to inform the interior ministry of Bresci’s presence in Italy, as required; nor did he comply with another regulation: retaining Bresci’s passport until his departure." As for the bit about Bresci being free to practice his aim, as per Pernicone & Ottanelli: "Evidently convinced that Bresci had returned home only for a brief vacation, the police chief did not order any surveillance of this “dangerous anarchist,” thereby failing to learn that almost every morning Bresci would go out into the countryside and continue to engage in target practice with his revolver." It's less that he was allowed and more that he wasn't surveilled while he was doing this. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He only took one shot?
  • Was he accosted, which implies that he was approached, or was he already swept up in the crowd? Two different mental images: one of chaos in which it would be hard to make out what happened, and one in which there was more separation.
  • "I killed a principle" Assuming this is what bystanders heard him say, there are a few different versions reported, according to the sources. Which one is most accurate? czar 16:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Version I used appears to be the most accurate. Original Italian was apparently: "Io non ho ucciso Umberto. Io ho ucciso il Re. Ho ucciso un principio". I can only assume the differences come from mistranslations. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trial and conviction

Extended content
  • His trial was held in a single day?
    • Aye. Per Carey 1978: "Bresci was tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment -- all on one day: August 30, 1900, less than a month after the event." Kemp also describes it as a "brief trial." --Grnrchst (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does his lawyer's name need the three citations it has?
  • re: the conspiracy allegations, was this behind closed doors in the ministry, or in the newspapers, or shared in the trial without evidence?
    • The conspiracy allegations were something that the government pursued after the trial, with many of people being accused and arrested over the months after the trial, all without evidence. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "correspondents" – newspaper or correspondents with Bresci? Assuming the latter.
  • Were all eleven people associates of Bresci? If so, better to say so, as it makes the next parenthetical aside easier.
    • Not all of them were associates of Bresci, no. Pernicone & Ottanelli even note that they were arrested for "the flimsiest of reasons". Galli had been photographed by Bresci, Consolini merely commented on the assassination and Caprotti was badly behaved at Umberto's funeral. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Extended content
  • Which two items were prohibited? A towel and jacket?
    • Apparently only the towel was prohibited. I must have misread the source: "How did Bresci acquire a towel, an item forbidden the prisoners, and how was a towel long enough to be used for such a purpose? Eight days later the official version changed: Bresci had lengthened the towel by knotting it together with the collar of his jacket, a jacket said to have been found intact on the day of his suicide. His acquisition of a towel and a jacket was never revealed.
  • "he had died earlier than reported" As the authorities got the timing details wrong or that he was strangulated or killed some other way earlier?
    • The discrepancy was only something that the coroners noted, it wasn't something they or the authorities speculated about. "The physicians confirmed that Bresci had indeed died of strangulation, but asserted that his body showed evidence of greater putrefaction than would have been expected of someone dead less than forty-eight hours. Was it possible that Bresci’s demise had occurred a few days earlier? The autopsy findings of the three physicians brought the actual date of his death into question, but the issue was never pursued by the authorities."
  • "a number of historians" From which era, since history and evidence changes over time

Legacy

  • Why did the assassination lead to democracy? Was it a public reaction? What role did the assassination play in the ensuing events, and can any effects be directly attributed to the assassination as the cause?
    • It appears I misread the source. The assassination actually happened after the new government took over. The lack of anti-anarchist repression was a consequence of there being a new left-wing democratic government in power. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section's sequencing is still unclear (was Saracco's transition underway during the assassination? why wouldn't repression be a priority?) but the details of the government's inaction may not even be relevant to the scope. I'd save that detail for the separate assassination article (per above). Here what matters most to the reader is what the government did do in response: That there was no significant repression (and why) and that Italy set up a new surveillance network. The other details about Giolitti and security failures, (what "investigations of the American authorities"?) etc., are a better fit for a different article scope than Bresci's biography, having less to do with the man or his impact. czar 17:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth mentioning that Giolitti went from interior minister to head of government/prime minister ("Subsequent governments led by Giolitti"), since he was introduced as the former before
    • I think that he's prime minister is already implied in "governments led by" no? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the reader, Giolitti to this point is an interior minister, so without introducing him as a new prime minister and former interior minister, it's unclear what aspect of government is being "led". But may be moot point per above. czar 17:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • International response: Was there any increase in threat response from neighboring countries? No response from France and Spain, who had their own assassinations/bombings?
  • "Print media also linked Bresci's actions" linked how? Mentioning that they both happened recently or something more in depth?
  • Currently reads as saying anarchists generally considered him a martyr—there was no concern at the time about its effect on activist repression or the virtues of propaganda by the deed?
    • If there were prominent anarchist criticisms of Bresci, I haven't come across any. It seems most sympathised with his motives, as it was in direct response to a massacre of striking workers (also it didn't lead to wide-scale repression like others have). This wasn't like say, McKinley's assassination. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What influence did it have on subsequent activities in Paterson and the Galleanisti?
    • The Italian community in Paterson mostly became a focus of conspiracy theories about the assassination. I already covered its influence on the Galleanisti, through Galleani and the Bresci Circle. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Suggestions not directly important to the FAC criteria

Extended content
  • The article has detail on international reactions and effects on subsequent assassinations, but it would be nice to have some background on how this assassination fits within the larger history and influence of propaganda by deed, and how this event compared to other assassinations in the magnitude of fallout. Like how the article notes that the assassination contributed to a climate that eventually led to the 1909 Immigration Act—what about in other countries?
    • If my sources mentioned this, I would have. I checked some of my other sources, which are more focused on propaganda of the deed, but they don't go into any depth about Bresci. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

czar 14:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that review was mostly helpful! I'll have some time to reply later this week. If you'd like, I can also do an image and source review--let me know. I'm not sure how it works at FAC as I haven't seen someone do all three (prose, source, image reviews) in a while (if ever) but happy to do it here to ensure a successful nomination. czar 13:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Hey, it's been a month since I reopened this. Do you still want to respond? I'd be delighted if you could help out with the image and/or source review. I think I've nailed the image details this time, so shouldn't be an issue. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought I was waiting on your reply. I'll look through the above and will need a little time for the image and source reviews. czar 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh whoops! My bad. Thanks so much for all the help :) --Grnrchst (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAC peer review sidebar

[edit]
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

For consideration:

  • WorldCat subject heading
  • Antonioli, Maurizio; Berti, Giampietro (2004). "BRESCI, Gaetano Carlo Salvatore". Dizionario biografico online degli anarchici italiani (in Italian). Retrieved 2024-04-15.

czar 02:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to keep to English language sources, as there's already a lot in those, so I didn't feel it necessary to cite any Italian sources. I'm happy to add some of these to further reading, if you think it'd be helpful. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just compiling some links above for me to return later. :) Since the subject is Italian, if there are critical sources for the subject in Italian, usually FAC makes a valiant attempt to include them (i.e., citations for any critical points even if no one has read the full work). In the Dizionario biografico example, an encyclopedia generally isn't a high-quality source for FAC since it is usually tertiary to the subject but it can point at potential gaps in the article for which we'd want secondary sources. In this case, Dizionario biografico describes some historiographical elements like inconsistencies in how Bresci's history has been recorded/reported and emphasizes Bresci's joyful outlook compared to the stereotype of the antisocial anarchist, which might be useful investigations. Other points like Muriel (is this Gaetanina?) being born after the attack (assuming he knew his partner was pregnant?) is also conspicuous. Is his relationship with Brugnoli consequential? Etc. Doesn't mean we'd have to cite Dizionario biografico or any of these points but worth clarifying why'd intentionally not cover them. czar 13:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly a lot of this information seems rather trivial to me. If you think they're worth including, I can take a look, but I don't see anything substantial that this would add. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple sources mention his hometown as it:Coiano rather than Prato. Any reason for not including?
  • There's also a bit in Senta's book on Galleani but that pertains more to the assassination scope than to Bresci specifically.
  • Usually one identifier is enough for FAC. I recommend removing the OCLC or LCCN if the ISBN exists and is sufficient. Otherwise it needs to be added to all of them for consistency, so paring back is easiest.
    Sounds good. And agreed—I find OCLC identifiers even more helpful than ISBNs. czar 03:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Started to say this above but what's in the Italian-only sources? If it's important context, it should be included for the sake of FAC completeness. czar 23:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article notes that Bresci's prison papers (Archivio Centrale dello Stato in Rome) are destroyed but doesn't mention that the Archivio di Stato di Milano trial documentation has also disappeared. (Sellin 34 cites Italian sources) czar 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks are not required after your first FAC but here's a bunch for good measure (I don't have that Kemp chapter on hand so skipped it):

  • 5: okay
  • 10b: okay (but three sources aren't needed to say he lived in Hoboken on the weekends); can be combined with ref 11
  • 10a: Carey 51, Levy 211, Pernicone & Ottanelli 141 – I can't find where they say this split-city arrangement is to support his family
  • 15: okay: Carey is just p. 52, not 51. Levy 211 is not the strongest mention and can be removed. Pernicone & Ottanelli appear to be citing Galzerano.
  • 19: okay and looks like "family business" can be more specific here
  • 20: okay
  • 38: quibble but it's the Italian police (not government of Italy) in Carey 47. Levy okay (speaking of Giolitti gov't). Pernicone & Ottanelli is probably the strongest citation here. I'd remove the others.
  • 52: okay but just p. 169, not 170
  • 59: okay (but still unclear per above)
  • 65: this appears to be on pp. 311 and 313, which should be shortened from the general citation
  • 67: okay; can be combined with 75/76 for ease of reference in the second case (67b)

That's it from me. Some points to address but altogether nicely done. The major English-language works are covered but the biggest outstanding question is the state of the standard Italian-language histories and why they wouldn't be needed for completeness. If they're amply cited in the English sources (and they might be), then Further reading could be sufficient for most of what a general audience needs to know, but worth then addressing why it's all right to ignore the Dizionario biografico aspects, for instance, mentioned above, if they are indeed covered in the Italian sources. czar 01:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Hey, just wondering if there's any more I need to do here? Apologies so much of this has taken so long. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I had a few more bullets above (Italian-only sources, Michelangelo's Mountain, lasting effect on his family) czar 11:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I don't think there's much more to include from the Italian sources or Michelangelo's Mountain. Extra details from these appear to be mostly minor and trivial. Lasting effect on family has been added from Simon 2022. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm prepared to support at FAC. :)
One last cosmetic note: There are a number of sources in the "Further reading" section that are used as footnotes and thus should be moved to the Bibliography. czar 01:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

From Special:PermanentLink/1219360791:

czar 14:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To close this out, the images in use as of today (special:diff/1228888198) look good to go. czar 01:49, 25 June 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gaetano_Bresci/archive1&oldid=1230891080"