Talk:2021 La Paz municipal election/GA1

Article has passed Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Onegreatjoke (talk · contribs) 20:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I shall do this review. It will take me a while considering the size and foreign language sources of the article but I'll try my best! Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After an absurdly long amount of time. I am finally done reviewing!!! Putting on hold to see any remaining comments fixed. Ping me when your done with them all. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Assuming your satisfied with my citation explanations (I could have better explained the last note), should be all set. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing this nomination. Sorry for taking so long. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer that I answer each point as you go add them or wait until the full review is completed? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer if you were to just answer the points while I do them rather than waiting until i'm done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Background

"Since 2000, La Paz had experienced the longest period of" should be has.
- Wouldn't it be "had" since this election brought an end to that? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, don't know what I was thinking. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"All mayoralties are elected by simple majority" should be a simple majority.
- Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates and Campaigns

"A municipalist, Arias had extensive history in local matters," Had an extensive history.
- Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"allegations of corruption and mismanagement within the ministry recently under his tutelage" comma after tutelage.
- Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Arias stated while also arguing that the city could not continue in" also isn't needed.
- Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"given ongoing disputes in other regions due to lack of consensus" should be a lack of.
- Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"thus abrogating term limits" though abrogating is the correct term. Many people might not know what that word is. Including myself who had to google what that word was. So a synonym might be best here.
- Changed to "abolishing" Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" Barral and Quispe had extensive personal history as colleagues in the legislature" should be "had an extensive personal".
- Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"withdrawal practically paved the way for Arias" practically doesn't really seem like the right word here. either replace it or get rid of it.
- Changed to "virtually". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for prose. Should hopefully finish this review tuesday and/or wednesday. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced

Should the Pre-candidates section be sourced?
- They're sourced later on but I duplicated the citations to also be above the list. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Dockweiler's nomination had near-unanimous support among party leaders and social organizations" I can't seem to verify this.
- It's mentioned in the El País source, its just that Morales used the term "consensus" rather than "unanimous".
  - The word consensus is different unanimous though. So replacing unanimous to consensus would be better. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is citation 35 the right citation? A free registration is required so I might just be missing it.
- Certainly not, not sure how that ended up happening. The correct link has been added. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using google translate so I might be wrong but citation 37 doesn't explicitly state that CC no longer sought to participate in the election. Also, "signified the final collapse of the United for La Paz alliance." doesn't seem to be said either and kind of seems like original research which wikipedia doesn't like. Like i said, I could be wrong.
- It's not super explicit but it's in there. The article states that "due to differences [with UN and SOL.bo, CC] went to the electoral race alone". Since CC was the last member, by pulling out, the alliance was dissolved. Alarcón also states that they were seeking "to avoid dispersing the vote", meaning that they were removing themselves from contention so that the MAS wouldn't win by plurality. The article also states that Albarracín's withdrawal was the impetus for CC to pull out and dissolve the alliance. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Krisgabwoosh: Well like I said, citation 37 doesn't explicitly state that CC no longer sought to participate in the election. It just says that they went into the electoral race alone. I can understand what you're saying, but it still feels like WP:OR in a way. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But they also say that they're doing it "to avoid dispersing the vote", a statement that wouldn't make logical sense if they were still in the race. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not enough, I could just move citation 37 to be next to 38, which states that CC then endorsed a different candidate after withdrawing. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer if you do. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

No copyvios reported so pass.

Broad

Why is there no aftermath section? I feel as if that would be needed before this section could pass.
Another comment but I feel that the lead is too small for the article size. You could probably write an extra paragraph for it.
- Sorry for the wait, I've gone ahead and added an aftermath section and was wondering what types of things you think could be included in a second lead paragraph? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the intro, you could expand a bit more using stuff the from the campaign and the new aftermath section.
A second paragraph has now been added. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also sorry for finding another thing to complain about, but i'm surprised that the MAS candidacy section is only two paragraphs. Considering it got the second highest votes in the election, I expected at least one more paragraph. Though I understand if there's a lack of information (or if the information added would be too trivial) to add another paragraph. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, I'll explain. The MAS's performance more comes down to its status as the dominant party in the country, which means that it pretty much always take either first or second place regardless of whose running or where they're running. In more urban areas where it's support is weakest, the party typically wins by plurality amid a crowded field, something it had little chance of doing after Albarracín dropped out. For an American perspective, think of Dockweiler as having about as much media presence as a Republican running in a +20 Democratic district. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutrality seems good so pass.

Stable

Article is stable so pass.

Media

All media looks good so pass.