Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents

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.

Article promoted by Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents/archive1

A short article from me for a change. This one is about an instructive episode of recent Latin American history; Cuba seized two freighters flying Panamanian flags, accusing them of piracy, and a controversy followed. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free.
Any chance of free images of either of the affected boats? (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, Buidhe...I've looked a fair bit. I can't even seem to find non-free photos, let alone free ones. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

Sources are all free and adequately cited (although for FAC I would expect a more consistent citation style). (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews. My logic with formatting is to use sfn only for those sources that require multiple ranges, because jumping up and down is a little easier without sfn. I'm happy to modify the formatting if you think it's an issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Based on a conversation with Peacemaker below, I've added one source, thought I should let you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations states, "Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style". This article uses a mixture of United States and US, and uses US in the lead without the full name, which seems undesirable. I would recommend expanding all to "United States".
My general approach is to use United States at first use but not after, because there's very many uses (five just in the lead); this rule wasn't being followed in this article, but I've fixed it now
Among Cuban exiles in Miami, Santiago Babún, one of the brothers, was believed to have been an agent of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) while in Cuba I assume this means that Cuban exiles believed that Babún was a CIA agent? Maybe this could be rephrased to be more clear and avoid passive voice
Actually, the source suggests the belief was held by the Cuban exile community, hence the phrasing
Page 69 of the book does not actually state that the author was "a long-term correspondent on Latin America for the US media". You can fudge a bit with very brief descriptors such as "American journalist", but this definitely needs a verifiable source (t · c) buidhe 13:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's reasonable. I've trimmed it; I don't know that it's a contentious piece of information, and is supported by his bio at WaPo etc, but independent sources don't generally say this; so I've just dropped it. @Buidhe: I think that's everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM[edit]

Interesting article. I have a few comments:

Lead

link Cuba, Panama, Miami (in my experience few people know where these places are), Cuban exile, gunboat, insurgency
Done, and also Bahamas (I'm happy to do this, because the links are informative; I do think it likely that some AWB-wielder will remove them citing OVERLINK at some point).
say the Cuban government was socialist
I'm wary of ascribing ideology only to that government in the lead; not only is it a very contentious label, there's also analyses of Cuban exile ideology that I'm avoiding for the same reason, namely that it's too complex for the lead (and largely, for the article). I've amended it to read "government of Fidel Castro", which identifies it clearly enough, I think
put (CIA) after Central Intelligence Agency and use it later in the lead
Done
say "The US government" was that of Nixon
done
suggest "though he was released without facing trial"
The source doesn't quite make this explicit; charges were brought; Dinges says reams of legal paper were generated; so the trial may have been initiated, or it may not; and it's fairly clear he was released without a conviction.
"ships' logs" possessive plural noun
Fixed.

Body

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "(also described as the Lyle Express,[1] the Lalia Express,[2] and the Lyla Express[3])" is put in a note.
Done
"A 1997 biography of George H. W. Bush" I think it would be of value to mention that he was later Director of Central Intelligence then president
Added.
"responsible for shelling the Cuban village of Samá" shelling by a freighter? Very odd.
Well, the source says a boat, so we don't know what it was; but considering the context, it was most likely a sizeable weapon mounted on a freighter, rather than a vessel designed for use in combat. I've scoured the sources, and more details aren't available.
US Coast guard→US Coast Guard
Done
Cuban Gunboat→Cuban gunboat
Done
convert 235-foot using the following syntax {{cvt|235|ft|m|adj=on}}
Done
per MOS:AMPM, 11:35 am, same for later times
Done
"the gunboat had opened fire" with what?
I wish I knew. The sources don't say. I rather suspect that military historians who would pay attention to that kind of thing passed over this relatively minor incident, whereas political scientists got more mileage out of it thanks to its implications for international relations.
"that it would "all measures under international law"" undertake?
Fixed; used "take", simpler.
"charges of espionage were brought against ~~Villa~~him"
Theoretically, that's ambiguous; there's two named people in that sentence
"examinations of the ships' log books" same as above
Done
suggest "use the success of the mission as a bargaining chip in subsequent negotiations with the US"
Done.
has there been any discussion of these incidents in relation to the Law of the Sea other than the essentially self-serving Military Law Review case study?
Not that I am aware of. I have scoured the sources to the best of my abilities. Since you asked, I did another sweep, and came across the original of that case study (link). It's surprisingly somewhat more nuanced than the MLR source suggests, so I will add a sentence from it. I was unable to find anything else. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the review; I believe I have addressed everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

Lead: ...the freighters Leyla Express and Johnny Express were seized... suggest "the freighters Leyla Express and Johnny Express and their crew were seized..."
I don't know if I agree; it's implied, and is covered in the body; they'd hardly dump the crew in the ocean, would they?

Fair enough. Zawed (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: on December 5: I think that should be ; not :
Changed.
Lead: ...intercepted by gunboats of the island of Little Inagua...: there is a typo here, the first "of" should be "off". However, I think the language is getting a bit repetitive so suggest replacing the first "of" with "near".
True, tweaked.
Lead: and accused the ships of piracy. I don't think ships can be accused of anything; the company or the owners could be.
tweaked somewhat; it's a bit fuzzy because the captured crew weren't necessarily the ones engaging in shelling etc

Yes, good point. Zawed (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: one of Bahama Lines ships missing a possessive I think?
Indeed. fixed
Background: The corporation belonged to four brothers... belong to seems a strange way of putting this, suggest "owned by" (unless you are concerned by reading too closely on the source?)
The source says "belongs", but I don't see any reason not to say "owns", it just hadn't occurred to me. switched.
Vessel seizures: The company stated that the US Coast Guard had been notified of every incident, but that it had not taken any action. It is not clear whether "it" is the company or the USCG. I assume it is the latter, so suggest: "the company stated that the US Coast Guard had been notified of every incident, but no action had been taken."
Runs a little close to the source; gone with "but that the Coast Guard had not taken any action."
Suggest breaking the paragraph where it mentions the seizure of the Leyla Express.
Feels a little proseline-y to me; can do it if you feel strongly...

I'm not going to insist on it so it doesn't affect my supportbut it does seem like there are two different themes to that paragraph, hence the suggestion. Zawed (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vessel seizures: and escorted to the Cuban port of Baracoa. Cuba/Cuban is used three times in this sentence, but I don't think it is necessary to say the port is Cuban. It kind of goes without saying.
Fair enough. done.
Reactions and negotiations: A spokesperson for the US Department of State... The Department of State is linked here but it is actually first mentioned in the previous section so should be linked there.
True, moved.
Reactions and negotiations: According to Verne... shouldn't he be referred to by surname, not given name?
Indeed he should
Reactions and negotiations: owners of the Bahamas Lines Typo in company name here
Fixed that and one other instance
Havana is linked on its second mention, not its first.
Fixed
Manuel Noriega is linked twice.
Intentional; IMHO these are far enough apart that they are useful, especially as there isn't much context for who Noriega is in either case.

Fair enough. Zawed (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is my review done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for a careful prose review, it's much appreciated. I believe I have addressed all your points. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good, responded above and added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

It looks like this one's fairly close, so I'll go ahead and get a review in over the next couple days. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"by the CIA.[15][16][10] " - Ref order
Fixed, thanks
"naturalized US citizen.[5][2][8] T" - Ref order
Likewise
"that the Cuban government had been forced to spend a lot of money and resources to" - I personally don't consider "a lot of" to be particularly encyclopedic phrasing
Fair. Castro says "fabulous sums", which I've simply quoted.

Well, that's about it. Very good work here. None of those points are significant, and probably a bit personal preference over anything else, so I'm going to go ahead and support now. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 16 September 2020 (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.