Talk:Guatemalan Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Guatemalan Revolution has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 11, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Guatemalan Revolution (1944–54)Guatemalan Revolution – "Guatemalan Revolution" already redirects here, and this is the most well known revolution in Guatemala's history. Charles Essie (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Guatemalan Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Simon Burchell (talk · contribs) 11:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I will be picking up this review shortly. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

General comments[edit]

  • Wikilinking is a little on the low side; I've dropped in a few, but I'm sure that plenty more relevant links can be added. This won't affect GA pass/fail. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In the lead Approximately 500,000 people benefited from the decree, the majority of them indigenous people who had been dispossessed after the Spanish invasion. needs to be rephrased. The people who had been dispossessed were long dead... I know what you mean but it could do with "whose ancestors had been dispossessed" or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out; I tweaked it, using "families" instead of ancestors. I hope that is okay.Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that works either, since it gives the impression of immediate family, when we're talking of over 400 years. Perhaps "forbears"? Simon Burchell (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright. I didn't like "ancestors," but "forbears" is good, I've put it in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Check your accenting of Spanish-language names/words through-out. It is quite inconsistent; I've found both Arbenz and Árbenz, Arevalo and Arévalo (I've changed all instances of both these names to the accented version). Simon Burchell (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reminding me. When I created it in userspace, I used the unaccented uniformly, simply because its a pain to use special characters. I ran through once before, but I've added content since then, and forgot. mea culpa, and thanks for checking, but I'll do another check myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've checked this, and I believe I have gotten every instance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've dropped a couple of journal articles into the Further reading - I'm happy to email them to you if you don't have JSTOR access. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The articles look good, and I do have JSTOR access, so thanks! FYI, the Gleijeses article you used is essentially a chapter of the book I used as a source, I believe. I don't think this is a problem, just thought I should let you know. As I understand it, he published many of the chapters of that book as articles before and after. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Feel free to cut the article from further reading if it is redundant... Simon Burchell (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm inclined to leave it, because people without the book (google books is not the most convenient) might have access. I brought it up because I was unsure if there was a guideline about it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dictatorship of Jorge Ubico[edit]

  • complete immunity from prosecution due to any action they took to defend... would be better as complete immunity from prosecution for any action... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • one of the more efficient and ruthless in Latin America feels like it's missing a noun, perhaps better as one of the most efficient... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • labor class looks odd to me, I think it would be better as working class Simon Burchell (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This one I'm not so sure about; I believe the term comes from the source, and the reason for that was that "working class" is frequently used in academia to mean industrial/urban workers, whereas the sentence refers to manual laborers, predominantly agricultural. I will check the source in just a bit. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, I looked this up. The source uses several interchangeable terms, but the most common one is the Spanish campesino. This is commonly translated as "peasant," but I've heard that "peasantry" is a little pejorative, and so I've rendered this as "agricultural laborers." Is that okay? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say in the context peasant is fine, but "peasant farmers" would be better - I wouldn't consider peasant or peasantry to be perjorative when referring to such farmers in Guatemala (and much of Latin America), where many live in very basic conditions. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 200,000 hectares - best to stick a convert template in here (and anywhere else with units of measurement) to give a non-metric equivalent. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe just me, but I have an intense dislike of unnecessary acronyms, like UFC. In a paragraph I would use the full name of the company in the first instance, and just company thereafter, if there is no ambiguity. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've done this in a couple of places, left it in in one place because I felt it might be a little ambiguous. I'll do it through the rest of the article, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've removed it through the article, with I think three exceptions, two of them where multiple companies are referred to, and one where there would have been too many uses in one sentence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • with the government not doing anything to, might be better as with the government doing nothing to... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

June 1944 general strike[edit]

  • and rural areas too began organizing, would be better as and rural areas also... (in which case, the following sentence beginning The government also began would be better with the "also" dropped). Simon Burchell (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The army itself had also begun to be disillusioned by the junta, better rephrased as By now, the army was disillusioned with the junta Simon Burchell (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Interim presidency of Ponce Vaides[edit]

  • including the teachers, the students, and the progressive factions - I would drop all three instances of "the". Simon Burchell (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • a small group of army officers launched a coup from within the army - "from within the army" is redundant here. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • launched a coup, led by the coup-plotters - "the coup-plotters" is redundant here. "led by Francisco Javier Arana and Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán" is sufficient, it is implicit that they are coup-plotters. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Election of Arévalo[edit]

  • and also felt uncomfortable - no need for "also" here. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • He returned to Argentina...returned to Guatemala - try to rephrase this so the sentence doesn't include repetition of "returned to". Simon Burchell (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Labor movement[edit]

  • those which were communist, better as "those that were communist". Simon Burchell (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Organización Regional Internacional Trabajo doesn't read well in Spanish, looks like it's missing something (probably "de" or "del" between Internacional and Trabajo). Simon Burchell (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Um. I have very little Spanish, so I probably mis-copied it from one of the sources. I'll take a look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, I looked at the source, you were spot on, it is "del Trabajo." I've corrected it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

1949 coup attempt[edit]

  • As the highest ranking military officer in the October Revolution, Francisco Arana had led the three-man military junta - this contradicts the Interim Presidency of Ponce Vaides section, which says a small group of army officers launched a coup, led by Francisco Javier Arana and Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you might be misunderstanding something; there were two three-person juntas around that time. Ubico resigned end-June, and handed over power to a three-person junta led by Ponce Vaides, who soon persuaded Congress to appoint him interim president. In October, Arana and Arbenz led the coup, and once in power, formed a junta along with Toriello. This second junta was led by Arana, since he was the ranking officer among the rebels. If there is a wording change that would make this clearer, I'm happy to make it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • PAR - you are using the Spanish acronym, referring to a party you have previously only named in English - either give the Spanish and the acronym after the first mention, or replace the acronym. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • All of the sources I've seen use the Spanish acronym; I've never seen RAP. Therefore, I've used a piped link at the first usage to show the Spanish name instead, and I've also inserted the acronym there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • a small fragment of the FPL split from the parent party to support him - is this fragmentation of the FPL, or did this split from another party? If the "fragment" represents a division of the FPL, I would dump "from the parent party" and replace it with "...of the FPL split off to support him" Simon Burchell (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This was indeed a division of the FPL. They named themselves the FPL Ortodoxo, but they became marginalized very quick, so I didn't want to expand on that in the text. I'd amended it like you suggested. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note Simon, apologies for inserting the 1949 coup section after the review began; I an unsure how I neglected it in the first place. In any case, it is now in place. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem! Simon Burchell (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Once again use of the Spanish acronym PAR, which hasn't been explained. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've substituted the Spanish name in the first usage, as mentioned above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal life and political beliefs[edit]

  • Something not quite right about the name of this subsection, which looks like a biography subsection sitting uncomfortably in the article. Perhaps rename it as "Background of Jacobo Árbenz" or something. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've retitled it "Arbenz' personal background." Is that better? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • he began plotting against the government along with his fellow officers, perhaps rephrase as "he and his fellow officers began plotting..." Simon Burchell (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • When Ubico resigned in 1944, Árbenz witnessed Ponce Vaides intimidate the congress into naming him president. Highly offended by this, Árbenz began plotting against Ponce Vaides, and was one of the military leaders of the coup that toppled him, in addition to being one of the few officers in the revolution who formed and maintained connections to the popular civilian movement - this seems a bit out of place; it should either be moved into the appropriate section earlier in the article, or change the tense to past perfect. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This stuff was in here because sources tend to link his ideology and his background, so moving it up would not, IMO, be useful. Therefore, I've changed it to past perfect, but I might have missed something. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Agrarian reform[edit]

  • 673 acres - earlier in the article, you were using hectares. It would be best to put convert templates in for all units of measurement throughout the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 225 dollars - better clarify this as US dollars (neighbouring Belize has its own dollar, and Guatemala doesn't have dollars at all). Simon Burchell (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've prefaced dollars with "US" in all cases but those where the article is discussing things in the US itself. If you think that is necessary, I will put them there, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • indigenous people is wikilinked here, this link should be moved back to the first instance. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've actually linked it several times, because that seemed appropriate; I just put one into the lead, but there are a few more in the body. It seemed appropriate, because the term is a complex one, so I've linked basically first use in several sections. If you think they should be removed, I can do that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
That's enough to be getting on with for now. I'll continue tomorrow. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

United Fruit Company[edit]

  • Again, I would replace instances of UFC the full name or with "the company" as appropriate - since the whole section is about United Fruit, it should be obvious which company. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Done with couple of exceptions, as explained above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Impact of the revolution[edit]

Lobbying efforts[edit]

  • 200,000 acres - needs a convert template,as does 400,000 acres. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Political motivations[edit]

  • According to Richard Immerman - this should be qualified - historian Richard Immerman, US historian Richard Immerman, or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Also wikilinked, since there is a stub about him. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Operation PBFORTUNE[edit]


  • and a number of human rights violations, makes it sound like there were only a few, and should be rephrased to give a more accurate idea of the scale (and cited to support this). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


  • A couple of the books are missing ISBNs. They are both quite recent, so they would certainly have them. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Cullather 2006 isn't actually referenced, so it should be moved to Further reading. Preview is available from Google Books, so it could be hyperlinked. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Forster 2001, preview available from Google Books, so I've linked the ref. Likewise Gleijeses 1991 - preview of the 1992 paperback edition online, and linked. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've dropped in a number of further links where sections of the book are available from Google Books. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing comments[edit]

  • AGF on offline sources. I spotchecked the one online source, and the Google previews of Forster 2001 and Gleijeses 1991/1992 (page numbers appear unchanged between the paperback/hardback editions), which revealed no copyvio concerns. Going forward (and this won't affect GA outcome), it would be good to have a short section near the beginning summarising the country's geography, major cities (Guatemala City and Quetzaltenango), and demographics (Maya concentrated in the highlands, Ladinos in the towns and cities, the Pacific coastal plain and the east), and regional production, since this does have some bearing on how the revolution and following civil war played out. All in all, an interesting and well put-together article. Once my remaining concerns have been addressed, I expect to pass the article fairly rapidly. Well done, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Simon Burchell, thanks for a very helpful, quick, and thorough review. I believe I have addressed every one of the points you raised; let me know if there's anything else, or any of them is incomplete. FWIW, I'm also happy to provide quotes from the offline sources, if there are particular cases you wish to verify. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert[edit]

This edit is not in accordance with YESPOV, which states that facts should not be presented as opinions. In particular, unless we have sources contradicting a statement, something that is supported by multiple academic sources can be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Also, this article has been through a GA review and a peer review, and so changes should be discussed here at the very least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible bias/lack of WP:NPOV[edit]

It seems that there is a bias in favour of the revolutionaries and against Jorge Ubico's government on this page, using buzzwords like "brutal", "democracy", etc. You can see my changes for neutrality on the history, but Vanamonde93 keeps reverting it and excused that its good article status is case enough for the status quo. Can we have this article rated again? I am going to put an npov template for the time being.--Sιgε |д・) 21:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Every statement in this article is thoroughly sourced, frequently to multiple sources. No statement is provided in Wikipedia's voice if any scholarly source contradicts it. Also, the scholarly sources used are probably the most well known ones English sources about this piece of Guatemalan history. Your statement about bias is clearly based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. This article was passed as a GA (in its current form) by User:Simon Burchell, and peer reviewed by User:AustralianRupert, neither of who found any issues with this. I strongly suggest you remove the tag, until you actually find a source contradicting the statements in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant...people make mistakes and standards and perspective caqn change easily and quickly. Even the sweetest fruit is subject to rot. I think it is in the bestinterest of the article and everyone involved to see this article reviewd again;besides the NPOV issue anyway, the layout seems a bit messy in my opinion. :/ No offense --Sιgε |д・) 13:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Not irrelevant. If you wish to demonstrate lack of NPOV, you need to find a reliable source contradicting the narrative presented in the article. Until then, your tagging is purely disruptive and pointy. If you don't provide such sources, the tag will be removed, because it has no basis. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Why are you so reluctant to find a third party here? By this time we could have already this issue solved. Anyhow, this official reference cites the Guatemala Revolution as having been majorly inspired and supported by the Communist Party of Guatemala, and "pro-democracy" and the former regime being "brutal" was in their view. However, the article doesn't mention this and you wouldn't want it anyway. Not to mention Marxism and liberalism are actually enemies, but I digress; this article is biased in favor of the current regime of Guatemala and general outlook of the West; see WP:BIAS.--Sιgε |д・) 19:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not reluctant; I have pinged both reviewers, and obviously the article is open to universal scrutiny. The "official document" you provided does not contradict anything in the article. More importantly, it is a cherry-picked section of a source that the article heavily relies on. You will have to do better. Is there a source which says the Revolution was undemocratic? Or that Ubico was a benign ruler? Until then, your statements carry no weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You're relying upon a false dichotomy fallacy. Does explicitly not using peacock words like "brutal" and "democratic" imply benign or undemocratic? The revolution/uprising is exactly what it was. Removing fluff does not deserve a source.--Sιgε |д・) 23:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, no. If you want to removed sourced information, you need a much better reason than calling it fluff. "democratic" is certainly not fluff, it is an entirely factual description. There are many phrases equivalent to "brutal labor practices," but just "labor practices" does not convey the same meaning. Please provide a source. Also, the pings don't seem to have worked, trying again; @Simon Burchell:, @AustralianRupert: Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
G'day, all, sorry for the late reply, I've been away from home for a few days. Regarding the above comments, I guess I see a middle ground option here. I don't agree that a word like "democracy" is a buzzword or is NPOV, although potentially describing something as "democratic" might be subjective (as indeed it might be to say something was "undemocratic"...) Describing something as "brutal" might also be subjective, but equally it can serve a purpose and I wouldn't necessarily say it is not neutral if done appropriately. In this regard, perhaps it would be a compromise solution to attribute such instances (and similar cases) in text. For instance, "being drawn to the working conditions in Guatemala City, which author John Smith has described as "brutal"." Would something like this work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, AustralianRupert! I think that compromise is lovely. I am going to trust Vanamonde93 to make the changes you mentioned, if not I will do them. Thank you for the advice, I will remove the template when the change is made. Nice to see some civil sense here,--Sιgε |д・) 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
AustralianRupert, thanks for your suggestions. Attributing descriptions of labor polices I'm (sort of) okay with, partially we are not giving enough specifics for people to judge for themselves. That is not the subject of the article, after all. Calling the Revolution democratic, on the other hand, I'm definitely against attributing, basicaly because of YESPOV; "don't state facts as opinions." There is overwhelming consensus among sources that these ten years were democratic, and so attributing that would only serve to cast aspersions on said sources, and also to make it sound like coatracking. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Funny how you mention coatracking, because that is *exactly* what you're doing; you are claiming the revolution was all well and good and Jorge Ubico was an objectively evil tyrant. This is what the article implies to the reasonable person, This is unfair and I guarantee you that the article would not be written in such a pro-"democracy" way if the revolution was only temporary. "brutal", etc. is unneeded. Every source has *some* bias and it is not our job to extract that, like you implied with my evidence that the revolution was supported by the Communist Party of Guatemala. Make the article less biased. Wikipedia alrady suffersenough from systemic bias of "modern" ideals.--Sιgε |д・) 17:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Your additions are in complete violation of WP:YESPOV. There are sources which make certain statements about the Ubico government. There are no sources which disagree. In this case, adding phrases like "has been seen" and "seen by some" is not NPOV, but quite the opposite. For the nth time; find a source which presents a view other than the ones in this article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigehulmus, you really need to self-revert your 4th revert and discuss this first. Getting consensus is not optional, and you definitely do not have it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


@Dank:, thank you for the copy-edit. As the writer of TFA, I would trust your judgement; however, it seems to me that the first part of this edit removes some information. The second part is certainly an improvement. Also, I personally like "Guatemalan Revolution was the period in.....Could you elaborate a little bit? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

OOps, just saw your note at the peer review. I will make some partial reverts, and let's take it from there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I ended up reverting most of you changes. Here's why; 1) I think the term "guatemalan revolution" can be confusing, as people think of "revolution" as meaning armed struggle. Hence the phrase "period in history...." 2) Personally, I think the info about dispossession is relevant in the lede; if you feel otherwise, we can take it out. 3) I like the greater specificity that your edit brought, but I think it needs to be clear that both HR violations and the genocide were from the military, and your text perhaps leaves that ambiguous. Trying to think of a solution, and currently unable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Vanamonde, I'll be back in the morning. We could use more articles at this level on 20th-century Central American history. Are you planning to take this to WP:FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Back. Again, is this headed to FAC? If we might have 10M casual readers looking at a short version of the lead for this article on the Main Page, rather than the typical (probably more clued-in) readership for this article, then some of the words will have to get closer to their dictionary definitions (revolution, forebear, etc.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank, yes, my plan was to take this to FAC as soon as my RL gets a little less busy. "Forbear" I am not so hung up on; synonyms would work, it's the idea that matters. I can see the trouble with "revolution;" but in that case, it's not a word that I inserted, it's the common name for that period in virtually every reliable source, despite that usage being slightly different from common usage. I don't know if it really is a problem; Merriam-wester offers three definitions, the second of which is "a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc." Which is what this falls under. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll see this when it gets to FAC. Make whatever edits seem right to you, and I'll have another look then. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)