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 toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SusunW ( talk · contribs) 21:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Seems like you and I are still the only outstanding nominations on the Women in Green page for 2022, so I'll take another of yours. Can I just say off the cuff, I truly enjoy the way you write about these politicians. International politics are complicated and your writing makes them comprehensible. The articles are very informative and clear and fill a gap in our coverage of South American women. I'm open to discussion, on any point. My observations:
In the ensuing years
…the source cited says she had post graduate degrees from the IDEA and University of Salamanca, but does not mention University of Valle or what fields those degrees were in. (Los Tiempos Digital 2019) confirms Univalle and gives the fields. Add cite.
- I think you might've skipped over citation three (Urgente.bo), which backs the claims regarding her postgraduate degrees. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, she completed
citation 3 and 4 are the same, except one gives the author and the other doesn't. These should be uniform and the one without Fernandez as author deleted. Also, mark Página Siete as {{ subscription needed}}
- Granted, both have the same title, but each has some information that the other doesn't. Citation 3 (Urgente.bo) doesn't contain anything on her studies at IDEA, while citation 4 (Opinión) lacks mention of what types of postgraduate degrees she received. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Surprised there is no page called women's movements in Bolivia, but perhaps link "women's movements" to Gender inequality in Bolivia.
- Added a link to Feminism in Bolivia ('Women's movements in...' seem to all be redirects to 'Feminism in...'). For now, I've made it a redirect to Gender inequality in Bolivia. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure that using UN as an acronym for National Unity Front is clear to most readers. While defined in the article, each time I run across it later, I automatically think United Nations. Possibly either use NUF or the full name?
- Yeah, I noticed that the spellcheck I use also consistently reads UN that way. Using the English 'NUF' I think doesn't really work when all the other acronyms follow Spanish naming (MDS, BDN, etc.). The Spanish 'FUN' has the potential to also be confusing ('Fun') and isn't really in common use. Using the full 'National Unity' each time seems a bit intrusive given that appears multiple times in one paragraph. All in all, hopefully you'll be fine with me keeping it as is. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
take a second swing
is possibly too idiomatic for an international encyclopedia. Perhaps "make a second attempt"?
- Agreed. Changed to 'make a second attempt'. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
She topped UD's electoral list in the Cochabamba Department
… source cited says she won a seat as young woman, but not that she represented Cochabamba. Fernandez 2019 confirms that. Add citation.
Done
Krisgabwoosh (
talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
have been participating
is passive, why not just participate?
- Done
Krisgabwoosh (
talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would move citation at the end of the sentence starting
The relationship between UN and the MDS
to follow the quote, i.e.The relationship between UN and the MDS "ended the first day they (the legislators) took their seats in 2015."[14] Much of…
because the quote comes from that source and the chaos she faced isn't included in that source, but is included in the two sources that cite the rest of the paragraph.
- Done
Krisgabwoosh (
talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
the party re-launched its campaign for the re-done 2020 general election
seems confusing. The link on the 2020 election says the 2019 results were annulled, so it seems to me that the 2020 election wasn't redone, but the 2019 one was. Perhaps just strike re-done?
- Done
Krisgabwoosh (
talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Overall a very enjoyable read. Thank you for your work. Ping me when you have had a chance to respond. SusunW ( talk) 21:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- @
SusunW: First off, thank you for the kind comments up at the top. In terms of observations, I broke off on a few points but overall made most changes as suggested.
Krisgabwoosh (
talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Krisgabwoosh Looks like everything has been adequately addressed. Thank you so much for the feedback on the discussion points. I appreciate your thoroughness. Passing it now. Give me a few minutes to complete the processes. SusunW ( talk) 21:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and
verifiable.
- a. (
reference section):
- b. (citations to
reliable sources):
- c. (
OR):
- d. (
copyvio and
plagiarism):
- a. (
reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (
major aspects):
- b. (
focused):
- a. (
major aspects):
- It follows the
neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have
non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked
are unassessed)
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.
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 toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SusunW ( talk · contribs) 21:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Seems like you and I are still the only outstanding nominations on the Women in Green page for 2022, so I'll take another of yours. Can I just say off the cuff, I truly enjoy the way you write about these politicians. International politics are complicated and your writing makes them comprehensible. The articles are very informative and clear and fill a gap in our coverage of South American women. I'm open to discussion, on any point. My observations:
In the ensuing years
…the source cited says she had post graduate degrees from the IDEA and University of Salamanca, but does not mention University of Valle or what fields those degrees were in. (Los Tiempos Digital 2019) confirms Univalle and gives the fields. Add cite.
- I think you might've skipped over citation three (Urgente.bo), which backs the claims regarding her postgraduate degrees. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, she completed
citation 3 and 4 are the same, except one gives the author and the other doesn't. These should be uniform and the one without Fernandez as author deleted. Also, mark Página Siete as {{ subscription needed}}
- Granted, both have the same title, but each has some information that the other doesn't. Citation 3 (Urgente.bo) doesn't contain anything on her studies at IDEA, while citation 4 (Opinión) lacks mention of what types of postgraduate degrees she received. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Surprised there is no page called women's movements in Bolivia, but perhaps link "women's movements" to Gender inequality in Bolivia.
- Added a link to Feminism in Bolivia ('Women's movements in...' seem to all be redirects to 'Feminism in...'). For now, I've made it a redirect to Gender inequality in Bolivia. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure that using UN as an acronym for National Unity Front is clear to most readers. While defined in the article, each time I run across it later, I automatically think United Nations. Possibly either use NUF or the full name?
- Yeah, I noticed that the spellcheck I use also consistently reads UN that way. Using the English 'NUF' I think doesn't really work when all the other acronyms follow Spanish naming (MDS, BDN, etc.). The Spanish 'FUN' has the potential to also be confusing ('Fun') and isn't really in common use. Using the full 'National Unity' each time seems a bit intrusive given that appears multiple times in one paragraph. All in all, hopefully you'll be fine with me keeping it as is. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
take a second swing
is possibly too idiomatic for an international encyclopedia. Perhaps "make a second attempt"?
- Agreed. Changed to 'make a second attempt'. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
She topped UD's electoral list in the Cochabamba Department
… source cited says she won a seat as young woman, but not that she represented Cochabamba. Fernandez 2019 confirms that. Add citation.
- Done
Krisgabwoosh (
talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
have been participating
is passive, why not just participate?
- Done
Krisgabwoosh (
talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would move citation at the end of the sentence starting
The relationship between UN and the MDS
to follow the quote, i.e.The relationship between UN and the MDS "ended the first day they (the legislators) took their seats in 2015."[14] Much of…
because the quote comes from that source and the chaos she faced isn't included in that source, but is included in the two sources that cite the rest of the paragraph.
- Done
Krisgabwoosh (
talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
the party re-launched its campaign for the re-done 2020 general election
seems confusing. The link on the 2020 election says the 2019 results were annulled, so it seems to me that the 2020 election wasn't redone, but the 2019 one was. Perhaps just strike re-done?
- Done
Krisgabwoosh (
talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Overall a very enjoyable read. Thank you for your work. Ping me when you have had a chance to respond. SusunW ( talk) 21:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- @
SusunW: First off, thank you for the kind comments up at the top. In terms of observations, I broke off on a few points but overall made most changes as suggested.
Krisgabwoosh (
talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Krisgabwoosh Looks like everything has been adequately addressed. Thank you so much for the feedback on the discussion points. I appreciate your thoroughness. Passing it now. Give me a few minutes to complete the processes. SusunW ( talk) 21:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and
verifiable.
- a. (
reference section):
- b. (citations to
reliable sources):
- c. (
OR):
- d. (
copyvio and
plagiarism):
- a. (
reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (
major aspects):
- b. (
focused):
- a. (
major aspects):
- It follows the
neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have
non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked
are unassessed)
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.