Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1969 Curaçao uprising/archive1

Add links
Source: 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 July 2019 [1].

1969 Curaçao uprising

Nominator(s): Carabinieri (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a major event in the history of a small country. The article reflects all significant scholarship on the topic and I'd be interested in getting some feedback. Carabinieri (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Curacao-CIA_WFB_Map.png: source link is dead
  • File:Dutch_soldier,_1969_Curaçao_uprising.png is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments. I believe I've addressed them:
  • I've done the best I could, but I'm still a little unclear on the difference between alt texts and captions.
  • I've added an updated link. Does the fact that this map appeared in the CIA Factbook make it public domain?

Sources review

  • The sources all seem to be scholarly and appropriate. However, there is a serious concern about the method of referencing, which is organised in a way that makes verification nearly impossible. Typically, each fact-packed paragraph is given a single citation, which appears at its end; this citation generally consists of multiple works and page references, with no guidance as to what refers to what. The referencing needs to be reorganised, so that individual statements and, in particular, direct quotations can be traced to a specific source.
  • The language of the source, if other than English, should be stated – see refs 28, 30, 31, 34.
  • It is standard practice for FA bibliographies to include ISBN details, unless there is a specific reason for omission. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Brian. As a reader, I find having a footnote after every sentence very distracting. That's why I generally don't use as many, but I'll increase the footnote density to make it clearer which source covers which claim. As to your other two points, they're not really standard practice outside of Wikipedia and I've never really understood why we do it here. But if you think it's important I'll implement them.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a minor point, but it's probably best to follow Wikipedia's standard practices when working on Wikipedia. Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Brianboulton, I believed I've addressed all the issues you've raised.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, I can send you PDFs of most of the sources, if you want to check anything.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

  • I know nothing about this topic, but it looks interesting, so while I would usually wait for someone else to comment, I'll have a look soon so it won't get archived just yet. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " which is a country (Dutch: land) within the Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "seat of government of the country Netherlands Antilles" kind of confuses me. So it is a country, but also part of another country, both within the kingdom of the Netherlands?
  • The first part describes the situation as it is now, the second part the situation as it was until 2010. How do you think this could be made less confusing?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it now on second reading, somehow I missed that the latter described a former entity. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the former spoke Papiamentu" You could explain in parenthesis what kind of language this is. I see you explain it by the end of the article, as "Papiamentu, a Creole language", but would be best earlier.
  • "The Dutch colonization of Curaçao began with the importation of slaves" Slaves from where?
  • "rhetoric as Black Power and civil rights movements" Link those. I see then former is linked further down, but should be at first mention.
  • "many Antilleans traveled abroad, including a number who studied abroad" The double abroad looks repetitive.
  • "The uprising would parallel anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, and anti-racist movements" Link these terms.
  • I've linked anti-colonial, although there isn't really a perfect target for a link, on a previous mention and anti-capitalist and anti-racist here.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Vitó started being published in Papiamentu rather than Dutch in 1967" How long had it been published until then?
  • The sources aren't entirely clear on this. Oostindie says that Vitó existed "as early as 1965", but it may have been started before that.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In many ways, black Curaçaoans' situation" Reads a bit awkwardly, "the situation of black Curaçaoans" maybe?
  • "Although a progressive priest" Seems a bit disjointed if you don't mention his name or nationality.
  • "was about read a declaration" Missing to?
  • You can choose a more exciting thumb still for the video if you use the thumb time parameter, see for example the videos under description in the passenger pigeon article.
  • "and guard banks and other key buildings" Guarded?
  • "countries.Deliberations" Missing space.
  • "as Antilleans and the Surinamese" Why only definite for the second group?
  • "Dutch parliament discussed the events" Why not "the Dutch"?
  • "Anderson/Dynes" Wouldn't "Anderson & Dynes" be a more common way of citing?
  • Link Sephardic Jews?
Thanks a lot for your feedback.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with the caveat that I knew nothing about this topic, but it reads well, and everything I expected to see is there. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

Fascinating subject. My comments:

  • I'm in agreement with the above comment about the citations containing to much condensed referencing information; this makes it hard to verify what came from where.
  • I've already greatly increased the density of footnotes in response to that comment. I'm not sure how it's hard to verify the information: one only has to look at the footnotes and then check the sources. I understand that over the years it's become common practice, particularly on FAs, to have more footnotes than sentences. (It was one of the things I was most struck by when I returned to Wikipedia after a rather lengthy hiatus a while back.) I don't really see how this trend is all that helpful though. It mainly just makes articles grotesquely cumbersome to read. Is there a particular statement you're having difficulty verifying?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume Trinta de Mei does not translate to "1969 Curaçao uprising"; the English translation of this phrase (30th of May?) should be given too.
  • It made promises of improving workers' conditions that it was unable to make good on. Was the DP unable to do this due to the economic realities of the country's small economy, or was there a hesitancy to actually carry out its promises?
  • I suspect it was some combination of both, but the sources aren't any more specific. Anderson & Dynes just write that there was a "legacy of expectation among laborers that the Democratic Party would do something to alleviate the many economic problems that plagued them. The emergence of the May Movement was not unrelated to the fact that the Democratic Party, as the party in power in the central government, could not live up to such expectations."--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the progressive priest Amado Römer had warned... When did he make these warnings?
  • In 1957, the Federation reached a collective bargaining agreement. With whom?
  • In May 1969, there was a labor dispute...Vitó was heavily involved in the strike...It was not made clear that this dispute involved a strike. Recommend either saying so explicitly, or qualifying the word "strike" with "subsequent" or "resulting".
  • Actually, the source doesn't say there had been a strike at that point. I must have misread.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • that month there was significant labor unrest taking place throughout the Netherlands Antilles. Recommend ditching passive voice here, perhaps "that month significant labor unrest occurred throughout the Netherlands Antilles."
  • a moderate labor figure was about to read a declaration announcing a compromise So Werkspoor attempted to negotiate with the strikers?
  • I would assume so, but the sources don't say so explicitly.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, a pick-up truck with a white driver was set on fire...Was the driver (intentionally) harmed, or did the strikers only (seek to) damage the vehicle?
  • I don't know, Anderson & Dynes just say that it the truck was set on fire.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The police was attacked with a fire truck that had been sent to support them and whose driver was shot and killed. Was the driver shot and killed by rioters and then the firetruck hijacked, or did the police shoot the driver after he attacked them?
  • I wondered about this myself while I was writing the article, but Anderson & Dynes just say the following: "one of two fire trucks that had been sent to support the police was set on fire and pushed in the direction of the police lines. The man at the steering wheel, later identified as an employee of WESCAR, was shot and killed." I'm guessing that means the latter (i.e. that a striking worker got behind the wheel as the truck was being pushed), but I'm not sure, so I decided to leave this ambiguous as I wrote this.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this then: "Two fire trucks were dispatched to assist the police. One was set on fire and pushed towards the police lines with a striker steering it. He was shot and killed." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 300 Dutch marines arrived on the island... This presumes they were not part of the island's garrison. Is it known where they came from? A nearby ship?
  • Seeing as the local government "requested the assistance" of the marines, it seems they lacked the power to directly order them to intervene. This begs the question, who issued that order? Was it local Dutch commanders, or officials in the Dutch government?
  • Because the Prime Minister of the Netherlands Antilles and others were absent during the uprising, the request "was made by lower ranking officials", according to Oostindie. Though the troops were deployed immediately, the request wasn't officially approved by the Kingdom Council of Minister until after the riots had ended (and then the additional soldiers were sent). Another aspect to this is that under the 1954 Charter, the Netherlands were constitutionally required to provide military assistance. I've added a little more information.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On June 5, Prime Minister Ciro Domenico Kroon, who went into hiding during the uprising... This should probably be mentioned earlier.
  • I've moved this to the paragraph that discusses the government's reaction.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All agree that revolution was never in the cards. "In the cards" is a euphemistic phrase, and here I'm not sure what exactly it means. Revolution was never the goal of the rioters? Or there was never even a possibility that the uprising could be considered a revolution?
  • I don't think of "in the cards" as a euphemism. What would it be a euphemism for? Some participants may have had aspired to start a revolution in this situation, but what this is saying is that the uprising never came close to turning into a revolution.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three were arrested during the uprising This should be mentioned earlier. Also curious as to how Godett was arrested; was he taken into custody upon his discharge from the hospital?
  • I've moved this up a few paragraphs. Unfortunately, I don't have any additional information on the circumstances of Godett's arrest.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contradiction between the calls for independence and the desire to remain in the Kingdom for economic reasons is mentioned, but is not adequately explained. The Antilles rejected an independence plan, but there were also calls by the populace for independence in the uprising's aftermath. Was there a public discourse on the matter, or significant disagreement between the government and the people on what course to take?
  • Unfortunately, the sources don't go into much more depth in this regard. Oostindie & Klinkers, the canonical source on this topic, focuses mainly on the Dutch and Antillean governments' policies, not the public debate. There were surveys on the issue which showed that most Curaçaoans were opposed to outright independence and in favor of continuing some kind of constitutional relationship with the Netherlands. I've added a sentence mentioning that.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks a lot for your feedback. I think it really helped.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: Did you have any further comments/concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. Congratulations on a well-written article about a fascinating subject; offering my support for promotion to FA. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

Very good read, only few nitpicks:

  • Its status had been changed in 1954 by the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands – but what was the status before it was changed?
  • Before 1954, the Netherlands Antilles was a colony of the Netherlands, mainly ruled by the Dutch government, but with some local self-government. Do you think that needs to be mentioned? I omitted it because I thought it wasn't relevant to what happened in 1969.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the way you are keep reminding who the mentioned people were even if already mentioned; helps a lot
  • advocated a political struggle in his speech to the strikers – What precisely did he demand from the government in this speech (which apparently was triggering the uprising)?
  • Mainly he was demanding that the government resign or be removed. I've added a little more, both in this paragraph and the preceding paragraph in the "Labor dispute" section.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was political power monopolized by the white elites? Blacks weren't allowed to vote? I did not fully comprehend what precisely hindered the Curacaoans from voting for a black president before the uprising. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monopolized" was likely putting it too strongly. I've changed it to "political power was mostly in the hands of white elites". Blacks were allowed to vote and they could have voted for black politicians. However, the parties were mostly in the hands of whites and there was not yet a concerted political challenge to this arrangement before 1969. Obviously, this changed after the uprising and whites also realized they had to include black people in government.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your comments, Jens. I hope I've addressed them adequately.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these points. All good. Supporting now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes + support / source review pass from SnowFire

I've had this on the Urgents list for a while but unfortunately it doesn't have sufficient support for promotion despite all the feedback. I'm hoping it will get some more attention soon, otherwise it will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is about ready now but I notice that the nominator hasn't taken an article all the way to FA for a long time, so I'd like to see a reviewer undertake a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- unless someone's done so and I missed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to provide pdfs of most of the sources to anyone willing to do this.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Carabinieri: Since nobody else seems to be stepping forward - I'll volunteer to do this source review. It will require the journal PDFs, however - if you can send Google Drive share links or the like to my email, that'd be appreciated. One question first though: this article portrays the event as rather momentous locally, a turning point. Do "general" historians of the Caribbean consider it as important, as well? Sometimes specialist literature can slightly overplay the importance of whatever it is that they're studying specifically, because nobody wants to write a journal article on "this event didn't really matter and was quickly forgotten" - not saying that happened here, just something to be aware of. SnowFire (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:SnowFire, thanks for volunteering. I'm putting the sources together to send them to you. Just a brief note on the importance of the event: I don't think the uprising is a significant even in Caribbean history. Curacao is a very small country and the uprising took place around the same time as more significant events like the Cuban Revolution or the Black Power Revolution in Trinidad and Tobago. I've taken a quick peek at several "Brief History of the Caribbean"-type books and none of them mention, as far as I can tell by the Google Books previews. The only exception is "Modern Political Culture in the Caribbean", which has a very short paragraph on the uprising itself and several more about the background and aftermath, but this is in a chapter that is specifically about the Dutch Caribbean, so it also doesn't place it in the context of the broader history of the Caribbean. Similarly, the book "Black Power in the Caribbean" also has a chapter about the Dutch Caribbean, much of which is about the 1969 uprising, and it is one of the main sources in the article, but neither the chapter itself nor the book's introduction make any claims about the uprising's significance with respect to the Caribbean in general.
Unless I'm overlooking something, the only claim about the uprising's significance the article makes is: "It was a pivotal moment in the history of Curaçao and of the vestigial Dutch Empire". I don't think there's any denying that. Many of the sources used in the article aren't about 1969 specifically, but about some aspect of the history of Curacao, the Dutch Antilles, or the Dutch possessions in the Americas. Pretty much every one of them mentions the importance of the uprising. Anyway, I'll get started on the sources.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments, reading this is still ongoing.

  • Carabinieri, didn't get Oostindie 2015 in your pack - is that possible to send over? If not, it's not a huge deal, don't need everything, but the quotes at the end of the "Uprising" section should ideally have a reference, which is presumably Oostindie 2015. I know you said that you don't like citation spam, which is fair, but think that per-sentence quotes (even if they all point to the same named reference) is probably good practice here.
    • In the same way, ÷"[DP] made promises of improving workers' conditions that it was unable to make good on" in Background isn't exactly in 1975, so I presume that's in 2015 as well. Might want a bit more context there since every politician ever makes promises they can't make good on. EDIT: Okay, it was in A&D 1975, but... not exactly a stirring endorsement with the uprising being "not unrelated to [DP] could not live up to such expectations." While this is referenced from a source review perspective, I'm not sold on its inclusion from a content perspective - the impression I get is that the economic slowdown in the 1960s was the problem and the DP's "promises" being unfulfilled was a tiny symptom. (Like, in the alternate world where the DP said "bad news we are all screwed there is no economic hope" I dunno if anything would have been different.)
    • Actually I'll just quit with this because there's a number of interesting claims that seem to be referenced to a few sources one of which is the 2015 journal article, so I'll hold off on comments in case you can send it over which would speed this up. (EDIT: Thanks!)
  • "This led to a segmentation of Curaçaoan society into landskinderen, those who had been in Curaçao for generations, and makamba, the new inhabitants from Europe. The latter had closer ties to the Netherlands and spoke Dutch, while the former spoke Papiamentu, a local Creole language." --> The impression I get from the source is that it was specifically talking about the splintering of white, Protestant Curacao society - so landskind spoke Dutch too, but they were the grandchildren of the old colonials and had a provincial education, while the newcomers had actually economically useful educations. Meanwhile as best I can tell Afro-Curacaoians made no such distinction; Makamba is translated by Oostindie 2015 as loosely "Dutch/White", so a general term. I think this requires some revision.
    • While on the above note, the 1975 source notes a good deal that the racial divide was also a religious one - that most of the African-descent population was Catholic (vs. the Protestants & Sephardic Jews), and this is in various other sources too (e.g. Romer 1981). Is this worth including somewhere, or was that incidental? (I recognize that the background section is already arguably too long.)
  • Social and cultural effects - I see you've referenced Verton 1976 here. In fairness to the source, Verton is also highly cynical, and while he acknowledges "upward social mobility for well-educated Afro-Curaçaoans" he also thinks the whole thing is a bit of a sham - that it just created new patronage positions for educated blacks, that the politics didn't change, that nothing improved for the poor who stagnated. Is Verton alone in believing this? This is quite a dated source written only a few years after the event, so not saying the above should be included, just curious.

SnowFire (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Although I suppose, on second look, this is already in "critics have also blamed mismanagement and corruption by the new political elites" at the end of the paragraph. SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to express this properly, because it's very weird, but the lede might do better at dispelling misconceptions - specifically that the Netherlands wanted to cut loose its colonies that its voters saw as poor, irrelevant, and sources of immigration, and it was the population of the Antilles that resisted independence. It'd be easy to assume based off the anti-colonial elements in the lede that the Dutch wanted to keep their colony while the activists wanted out, the usual way this works (e.g. in the Portuguese Empire in Africa) and that isn't quite the case here. Flip side, the lede space is precious, and the most hardcore activists were certainly influenced by Cuba and the like, so I'm not sure how best to express this myself.
  • I added Oostindie 2015 to the same link I sent you. I omitted it by accident. If you don't mind, I'll wait for you to finish, before I address your other points.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, thanks, that was a very useful source. Really after checking various references only the above concern about the landskind sentence + two-three questions / thoughts remain. I've checked quite a lot of the references and they are almost all accurately matching the content in the cited pages, so things look good after the above issues are dealt with. SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your very great feedback. I've added footnotes to that paragraph at the end of the "Uprising" section. I've changed "[DP] made promises of improving workers' conditions that it was unable to make good on" to "This relationship [between the DP and the labor movement] was strained by its inability to satisfy expectations it would improve workers' conditions". That makes it more directly about the conditions that gave rise to the uprising and aligns it more closely with what Anderson and Dynes say. You're totally right about the lanskinderen-makamba issue. I've reworked the paragraph, let me know what you think. I thought about adding information about the religious divide, as I wrote the article. I think, at one point, I actually did add it, but then changed my mind. Although several of the sources mention this fact, none of it say it contributed to the uprising in any direct way. If you think it would be helpful, I'm not opposed to introducing it to the article. I've added "while others defended this relationship [the Antilles' constitutional relationship with the Netherlands] as being beneficial to the island" as well "while the Netherlands Antilles itself resisted independence out of fear of the economic repercussions" to the lede. Is this the kind of change you were thinking of? The uprising's leaders and possibly many of the participants did think of the situation in terms of anti-colonial struggle as in Cuba or Angola. A majority of Curaçao's population and political leaders, it seems, did not. Thanks again for looking at this and your very helpful comments.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, looks good to me. If the Catholic part doesn't come up that much, totally fine to keep it out. I edited the lede a bit with the parts you just recently changed; take a look? I am still not 100% sold on the landskind phrasing we have now, but it's a lot closer to ideal, and I admit I'm not sure what the proper spin here is myself since most of the other sources don't talk about this particular split too deeply. Nice work! Support on both content and on accurately mirroring the sources, reference spotchecks checked out or have been fixed per above. SnowFire (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about the changes in the lede. "Still, others who were satisfied with the political situation as being beneficial to the island nevertheless decried societal inequality." I'm not sure who this is referring to. I can't remember any of the sources drawing a connection between support for the Charter and calls for equality. "most citizens of the Netherlands Antilles resisted independence out of fear of the economic repercussions" I'm not sure this is entirely accurate either. According to surveys, most citizens did oppose independence, but "resisted" would appear to imply that they opposed it actively in some way. None of the sources say they did, as far as I remember. They weren't actually asked for their opinion in a referendum until 1993.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carabinieri: Feel free to adjust my modifications then; what I was trying to get at with the first change was that there were unhappy rioters who weren't seeking revolution (per later in the article & sources that a full-on independence movement was not in the cards). My second change was more a manner of grammar than of content - it's slightly old-fashioned to say "the Netherlands Antilles itself resisted independence" where a personification of a country represents the will of its citizens or some such, so I spelled it out with "most citizens of." I'm definitely open to other options. SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain: Passed as of July 4, per the support above & header. The only significant issue mismatch with the source has been fixed to my satisfaction. SnowFire (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

I reviewed this for GA and there's no reason to disallow this based on an arbitrary lack of support, particularly if nothing is actionable to make it "better". Some application of common sense is helpful here. All I can say beyond supporting is : "May 31–June 1, 1969" shouldn't that be spaced en-dash per MOS:DATE? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it would also be helpful if Indy beetle, who gave really good feedback, could take another look an possibly offer some comments relating to the resolution of their concerns, and maybe even a support? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:The Rambling Man. You're right about the dash thing. I've changed it.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Red Phoenix

I arrived pretty late to the party, but I found this a very interesting subject as I read it. I found it very well written, and I can see where there's already been significant refinement to the prose of the article. Essentially all I could identify was a missing apostrophe in a word, which I corrected myself. I do have a couple of prose suggestions I'll list below, none of which will be a barrier to my support because they're minor in my eyes:

  • All in all, the uprising cost two lives, identified as A. Gutierrez and A. Doran, left 22 police officers and 57 others injured, and led to a total of 322 arrests, including the leaders Papa Godett and Amador Nita of the dock workers' union and Stanley Brown, the editor of Vitó. - is there a need for "All in all" here? It doesn't sound terribly encyclopedic.
  • However, the soldiers immediately joined police, local volunteers, and firemen as they fought hard to stop the rioting, put out fires set in looted buildings, and guarded banks and other key buildings while thick plumes of dark smoke emanated from the city center. Yet, many of the buildings in this part of Willemstad were old and burned easily. - Two consecutive sentences starting with transition words just reads odd for sentence fluency.
  • Paragraph before and after the Aftermath header start consecutively with "The uprising" - even separated by a section header, this reads a little repetitively. The next one after that starts with "The uprising's leaders", which contributes more to this.
  • On June 1, 1969, 300 to 500, some of them Antillean students, marched in support of the struggle in Curaçao and clashed with police in The Hague, the seat of the Dutch government. Maybe it's just me who didn't get this right away, but 300 to 500 what? I get it's implied it's people, but is it a group of people? It's a bit ambiguous this way.

Excellent job with this article. Red Phoenix talk 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Phoenix. I've made some adjustments to the passages you listed.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2019 (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/1969_Curaçao_uprising/archive1&oldid=906609824"