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

Reviewer: Onegreatjoke ( talk · contribs) 21:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Back to review another election nomination of yours! Hopefully it doesn't take as long as last time to do. Comments begin tomorrow. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Damn I'm very sorry for how long this took but I'm finally putting this on hold now. Hope to see this completed. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Krisgabwoosh: Probably should have pinged you. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Onegreatjoke: Hi! Sorry for the wait. I know we were hoping for a shorter review process this time around, but a hectic schedule on my end has unfortunately dashed that. Since this has been on hold for more than seven days now, I just wanted to pop in to assure that I'm hoping to handle the finishing touches tomorrow. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Krisgabwoosh: Another ping. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Krisgabwoosh: Another ping because I really do not want to fail this review for inactivity when it's this close. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Onegreatjoke:, sorry again for the wait and delay in replying—I feel I've really left you hanging on this one, apologies. Unfortunately, unforeseen recent issues haven't given me much time to do much of anything and as I leave the country at the end of the month, I expect I won't be able to get back to active editing until mid-June. It'd be a shame to close this review when it's this close, but if you feel it has dragged on too long, feel free to. If not, I'd still be happy to address the final issues when I can. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 18:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. ( reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. ( OR):

   d. ( copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. ( major aspects):

   b. ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Prose

Background

• "All governorships are elected by simple majority in a two-round system," Should be "by a simply majority.

Other political organizations

•  Done Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• "making it, together with the provinces, key to winning the election." Should be "the key".

•  Done Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Should chola be capitalized?

• I don't believe so. In the same way "white" or "black" or "mestizo" wouldn't be capitalized. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• " governed La Paz as prefect—the precursor to governor" Should be it be "the governor"?

• More like "the position of governor"; I think, grammatically, it works as. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Everything else looks fine Onegreatjoke ( talk) 18:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Verification

Spot checks

• 9 is good
• 10 and 11 are good
• 21 is good
• 39 is good
• 37 is good
• For citation 3, while it does prove the extension, it doesn't prove more of the specific details of the election like "completing a five-year mandate started in 2015." So I feel as there should be a citation detailing that. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Added citation. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 22:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• 30 is good
• 41 is good
• 51 is good
• 63 is good.

That's a good amount of spotchecks to me. verification seems good enough to me aside from my qualm with the third citation.

Broadness

• I think the article needs an aftermath section like in the 2021 la paz municipal election to be considered broad enough.

• Working on that. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Done now. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 22:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Also, I'd prefer for a second paragraph to be added into the lead. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC) reply

•  Done Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 21:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• One last thing, is there anything more you can talk about for the third system movement's campaign. I'm surprised there's only 1 paragraph considering they were the incumbent party at the time. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 21:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  Unfortunately not. By 2021, Patzi's reelection campaign was a longshot, and he barely registered in polls, leading most media outlets to turn their focus on the main three candidates. I almost didn't even include him in the infobox, as he technically didn't meet the threshold of the WP:Five percent rule. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 22:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Onegreatjoke: I've (finally) addressed the last few topics of concern. Thank you so much for your patience and for baring with me as I dealt with a hectic last few months. The "hopefully it doesn't take as long as last time to do" line at the top sounds a tad comical now, apologies for that. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 22:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply