Talk:Marcela Revollo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 16:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria checklist

I'm going to take up this review. (Full disclosure: I made one edit already, just to add an author name to a citation) I'll start off with a checklist of the GA criteria and follow with a breakdown of each section.

Well written Yes The article is reasonably well-written and easily understandable.
Verifiable with no original research Yes Every statement references verifiable source. Although every cited source is in the Spanish language, which makes it less accessible to those that can't read the language, their mostly being in text means they can be easily verified via translation software. (I'm fluent in the language, so this is no issue for me, but can be for others)
Broad in its coverage Yes Reasonably covers the subject's biography, ~~although it is lacking in any information on Revollo's life after leaving office. If information on her life from 2015 to 2022 exists, it should be added whenever possible.~~

Unlike in the U.S. or U.K., in Bolivia, with few exceptions, former parliamentarians tend not to maintain national profiles past their terms. In the case of Revollo, a quick scour through Página Siete finds just four mentions of her part 2015, all non-notable. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for checking. I've amended now. If you can change "anti-democratic" in the lead to "illiberal", I think that about wraps everything up. Grnrchst (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Yes Neutral ~~for the most part, but contains a few examples of non-neutral wording.~~ following neutralisation of more loaded terms.
Stable Yes Since its creation last week, no controversial edits have been made.
Illustrated Yes It has an image in the infobox. The article isn't long enough to need any others.

I'll follow shortly with a section-by-section breakdown. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

To start off with, the lead is chronologically confusing. It jumps from her time in the chamber of deputies, back to her time in the constituent assembly, back further to her activism in the students movement before moving forward to the period of the MAS in power. Consider rewritings to make it more chronological. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the chronology should be clearer now. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Though Revollo's political career is inseparable from that of her husband, longtime La Paz Mayor Juan del Granado, her political origins are independent of marriage." This sentence is internally contradictory. If she got her political career started before her marriage, then it's clearly not "inseparable" from her husband's. Consider a way of rewriting this. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, one's involvement in politics can be distinct from an actual career in the field (political activist vs. politician, in the case of Revollo). However, I agree that it can be confusing and as such have replaced "inseparable" with "closely linked". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] the administration's less-than-democratic practices." This is very euphemistic. Be more precise: what were the practices she criticised exactly? --Grnrchst (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Would "anti-democratic" be a more precise term?~~ Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and career

Remove the podcast as a source, or at least move it to external links. Whether or not the podcast itself is reliable, it's difficult to verify its information for people not familiar with the Spanish language - unlike the text sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the citation would take the sentence from "difficult to verify" to "unverified". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate "gender violence" to "violence against women". --Grnrchst (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further disambiguated to violence against women in Bolivia. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On verification of the second paragraph: I found that it is drawing from information in one source (Romero Ballivián 2018, p. 493) but only the section specifically about gender violence has any basis in the second source (Gonzales Salas 2013, p. 209). The second source also credits the editor as its author, but the actual author of the cited section is Marcela Revollo herself. As such, I recommend removing the Gonzales Salas 2013 source, per WP policy on primary sources and verification failure. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lean towards keeping it as a "reputably published" primary source, though I've changed the "author" parameters to "editor". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think you should remove the primary source entirely from the article. I'm saying this specific inline citation needs to be removed because it failed verification. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though in this case, the Gonzales Salas source directly cites "focusing on women's rights and combatting gender violence", which the Romero Ballivián citation is more vague about. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political career

As before, I recommend removing the Gonzales Salas 2013 source here. It failed verification, with Revollo only mentioning her husband but not going into any detail on their political activities together - mostly discussing marriage and family. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd again lean towards keeping it as a backing source. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, feel free to keep it in the bibliography, but the problem is that the inline citation fails verification. The information that this inline citation is attached to is not in the source. Grnrchst (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While small, the sentence "Estoy casada con Juan Del Granado y juntos construimos una visión política" is meant to lend credence to her participation in founding the MSM, which while implied by the Romero Ballivián source, is less explicitly stated. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "inextricably" from first sentence for better neutrality. Perhaps change it to "closely"? --Grnrchst (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does "won handily" mean exactly? Consider removing "handily" for neutrality.

"Handily", meaning "without delay or difficulty; easily." Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Revollo took a utilitarian approach to legislating" What is this supposed to mean? Neither of the cited sources use the word "utilitaria" or anything similar.

Ah yes. I had intended to say "pragmatic" but my brain decided to excise the word from my memory before I could originally use it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cited sources (Vargas & Villavicencio 2014, p. 133) talks about her work on environmentalism and women's rights but never mentions the MAS's social project or her being critical of the MAS government. The second (Romero Ballivián 2018, p. 493) is the opposite: mentioning her support for the MAS's social project and her criticism of the MAS but not mentioning her environmental or feminist work. Please restructure the sentence and move each citation inline with what they say. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would resulted in "supporting the MAS's social project,[1] including making important contributions to legislation in favor of women and the environment,[2] even as she simultaneously criticized the ruling party for its anti-democratic practices.[1]" Repeating a source twice in the same sentences seems less intuitive than just placed both at the end. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're worried about repeating the source, consider restructuring it sentence like this: "For the duration of her term, Revollo took a pragmatic approach to legislating. While she criticized the ruling party for its anti-democratic practices, she also supported the MAS's social project,[1] including making important contributions to legislation in favor of women and the environment.[2]"

The problem with placing both at the end is an issue of synthesis. Grnrchst (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Anti-democratic practices" isn't exactly in line with the source, which describe's the MAS government as authoritarian, not anti-democratic. (These two concepts are not necessarily the same. See: electoral autocracy) --Grnrchst (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While Romero does say "authoritarian", the implied term here is indeed "anti-democratic". Primary criticisms of the MAS—even in other section of the same book—lean more towards the weakening of democratic institutions and less so on suppression of antigovernmental activity. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, changing the terminology from the source could be taken as original research, which is why I brought it up. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, though directly using "authoritarian" will likely be interpreted as violating neutrality. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either one, whether "anti-democratic" or "authoritarian", is going to be a loaded term. If you're uncomfortable with including the word in your own writing, feel free to use quotes from the source. So in this case you could say: "she criticized the ruling party for its "authoritarianism"", as "autoritarismo" is the word used in the source. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would "illiberal" work. As in Illiberal democracy, a midway point to electoral autocracy, as you described. Quoting "authoritarian" may be confused as quoting Revollo herself, not Romero. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm not the biggest fan of the word "illiberal", but it is a more neutral term. So if you're still uncomfortable with using the term "authoritarian", then go ahead with "illiberal". -- Grnrchst (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "disastrous" for neutrality. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publications

Consider adding their respective OCLC numbers. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

For the news publications being cited, consider adding their ISSN and OCLC numbers, and double check to see you're not missing any author names. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of consistency, either convert more of the citations into Sfn or replace the Sfn citations with their respective works from the bibliography. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sfn citations in the text. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I mixed up the Sfn style with Harvnb, which appears to be what this article is using.

Consider adding OCLC numbers to citations in the Bibliography. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the CS1 maintenance tags that some of your sources have thrown up. See: CS1 location test and CS1 maint: url-status. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I'm not well-versed in what any of that meant. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I understand that citation maintenance is confusing, I only just figured it out myself. I'll try and explain:

CS1 maint: url-status: For the Atlas Electoral citations, they have "url-status=live" in the code but there is no "archive-url" set, which has caused a maintenance error. In order to clean this up, you either add in an archive-url field or remove the url-status field. For the sake of expediency, I went ahead and did the latter. See my changes here:[1]
CS1 location test: For La Patria citation, there is both a "publication-place=Oruru" field and a "location=La Paz" field. These two fields conflict with eachother, which caused a maintenance error. In order to clean this up, you remove one or the other. For the sake of expediency, I went ahead and did the latter. See my changes here:[2]

Let me know if you need any further explanation. Grnrchst (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, thanks for the explanation. I am curious as to why the second would cause an error, though, as both parameters could be reasonably included at once. In the case of La Patria, the actual work was published in Oruro but states that it was written in La Paz, for example. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is curious, but I didn't write the errors, I just read them. :P Grnrchst (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final notes

If the above-mentioned issues can be fixed, then there shouldn't be any problem with passing this. But as of right now, this article still needs work on neutralisation, verification and some other maintenance. @Krisgabwoosh: let me know if there's anything I can do to help you along with this process. Regards. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article passed as GA. @Krisgabwoosh: Well done for all your hard work and thanks for collaborating with me on this review! --Grnrchst (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2022 (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.