This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1936 Spanish general election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 17, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "Vote Communist to save Spain from Marxism" was a Socialist joke during the
1936 Spanish general election? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 16, 2020, and February 16, 2021. |
In their wiki-article it says the the Workers Party of Marxist Unification despite being initally critical of the Popular Front policy eventually took part in the government. If that was true than did they contest the election or join afterwards?
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article and will make straightforward copyedits as I go (check edit summaries for reasoning). Correct me if I inadvertently change the meaning. I'll jot queries below: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Strike that last one - obvious. Sorry about forgetting review.
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
It is of course necessary to address fraud in these elections, but this can be done in a much more balanced and informative way. The large space given to old research by the American historian Payne is odd given how much more research more recently on the topic has been written. The Spanish language section is much better in keeping balance, even if it could be better still.
THe lopsided reference in the lead was introduced by user JPratas (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 5 January 2020 with no other material edits since.
I would suggest citing academic sources. There has been DIY historians in the popular press like Pío Moa, Fernando Paz ou encore César Vidal, and these don't seem balanced evidence-based researchers to me. Tardío and Villa are a more serious source, and by now well known, and they need to be mentioned. But even if it reads like a polemic, their work can still be read and interpreted neutrally. I think they wrote that they see fraud favouring the Front by at most 30 seats That wouldn't have changed the result. Especially such talk can be balanced with other analysis eg González Calleja and Sánchez Pérez «Reviewing revisionism. About the book 1936. Fraud and violence in the Popular Front elections » in Contemporary history in 2018.
And lastly, whatever the POV, it is inappropriate to give such a large space to Payne right in the lead.
TGcoa ( talk) 23:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The "Fraud paragraph" in the lede already has its content discussed in the outcomes section (indeed I was the one who originally wrote it), so it's a duplication and it's far too controversial to go in the lede, particularly since it doesn't mention Calleja and Perez's criticism, whereas the Outcome section does mention this. So I don't think it should go there at all. Sdio7 ( talk) 23:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Toda información sobre los graduados normalistas y cursillistas 1936 en Lobeira . ( provincia de Ourense ; aportación de los ayuntamientos y de la Deputacion provincial de Órense . 2A01:CB1D:8311:B900:8946:C606:BA9:D236 ( talk) 11:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1936 Spanish general election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 17, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "Vote Communist to save Spain from Marxism" was a Socialist joke during the
1936 Spanish general election? | ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 16, 2020, and February 16, 2021. |
In their wiki-article it says the the Workers Party of Marxist Unification despite being initally critical of the Popular Front policy eventually took part in the government. If that was true than did they contest the election or join afterwards?
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article and will make straightforward copyedits as I go (check edit summaries for reasoning). Correct me if I inadvertently change the meaning. I'll jot queries below: Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Strike that last one - obvious. Sorry about forgetting review.
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
Overall:
It is of course necessary to address fraud in these elections, but this can be done in a much more balanced and informative way. The large space given to old research by the American historian Payne is odd given how much more research more recently on the topic has been written. The Spanish language section is much better in keeping balance, even if it could be better still.
THe lopsided reference in the lead was introduced by user JPratas (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 5 January 2020 with no other material edits since.
I would suggest citing academic sources. There has been DIY historians in the popular press like Pío Moa, Fernando Paz ou encore César Vidal, and these don't seem balanced evidence-based researchers to me. Tardío and Villa are a more serious source, and by now well known, and they need to be mentioned. But even if it reads like a polemic, their work can still be read and interpreted neutrally. I think they wrote that they see fraud favouring the Front by at most 30 seats That wouldn't have changed the result. Especially such talk can be balanced with other analysis eg González Calleja and Sánchez Pérez «Reviewing revisionism. About the book 1936. Fraud and violence in the Popular Front elections » in Contemporary history in 2018.
And lastly, whatever the POV, it is inappropriate to give such a large space to Payne right in the lead.
TGcoa ( talk) 23:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The "Fraud paragraph" in the lede already has its content discussed in the outcomes section (indeed I was the one who originally wrote it), so it's a duplication and it's far too controversial to go in the lede, particularly since it doesn't mention Calleja and Perez's criticism, whereas the Outcome section does mention this. So I don't think it should go there at all. Sdio7 ( talk) 23:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Toda información sobre los graduados normalistas y cursillistas 1936 en Lobeira . ( provincia de Ourense ; aportación de los ayuntamientos y de la Deputacion provincial de Órense . 2A01:CB1D:8311:B900:8946:C606:BA9:D236 ( talk) 11:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)