Talk:Julia Figueredo/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) 17:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Always happy to review another article about a Bolivian indigenous woman in politics. Apologies it took so long for a review to materialise.

Comments

Early life and education

• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• "in solitude" This has the connotation that they were completely isolated. Think "by herself" would be a better wording.

• Changed to "on her own". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Side comment: Very interesting information in that footnote. Nice work including that.

• Thanks! Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Career and trade unionism

• Do we know her husband's name?

• Two sources mention one but give no name. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "made work as dairyers" Think "worked as dairy farmers" would be better. I'm not sure "made work" or "dairyers" are proper grammar.

• While I'll contest that "dairyers" is technically correct, I'll concede that "dairy farmers" is more understandable. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [9] Verified, although Gonzales Salas 2013 and Romero Ballivián 2018 don't appear to reference the specific confederation she was in. Might be worth moving a citation to Vargas & Villavicencio 2014 inline with the claim about the Bartolina Sisa Confederation.
• Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
• Second sentence in the last paragraph is quite long, consider breaking it up a bit. Think the bit about the La Paz Revolution bicentennial could be its own sentence.

• Split. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Election

• This first sentence is quite oddly written and hard to comprehend. This should be rewritten for clarity.

• Ok, hopefully now the essence of what I was trying to get across is clearer to understand. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• "considering the Bartolina Sisa Confederation's entrenched roots within the party apparatus" Considering? Think "as the Bartolina Sisa Confederation had entrenched roots within the party apparatus" would be better.

• I've added "buoyed" in place of "considering", although "assisted" or "aided" might also work. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• "by her organization" By her trade union or the MAS? It's unclear.

• Switched "her organization" for "the Bartolinas". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [14] Verified, although the specific social organisations are only referenced by Vargas & Villavicencio 2014. Consider moving that source inline with the text.

Tenure

• "Considering her Yungas origins" But she didn't originate from the Yungas? She moved there.

• Fair point. How about Yungas "roots"? Krisgabwoosh (talk)

• Spotcheck: [16] I couldn't find any of this information about being on the Coca Leaf Committee in Vargas & Villavicencio 2014, p. 71. It appears this information is on page 318. Rather than adding a confusing section redirect as an inline footnote, just put the page numbers in the inline citation.

• Done. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [17] Verified.
• One of the sources in [17] appears to be a blog post. Given blogspot is considered generally unreliable by perennial source discussions, it should probably be removed.

• In this instance, I believe the blogspot source is acceptable, as it is (or rather, was) the official site of Cochabamba's parliamentary delegation. The article text is attributed to "Prensa Diputados", meaning it would at some point have been published on the Chamber of Deputies website. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is there any more information that can be provided about the Página Siete source? I understand it's a print source, which are harder to verify, so any more information helps.

• If you wish to verify it, there is an online mirror version, which I didn't use due to the issues with blogspots you outlined above. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• I can assume there's not much information about her activities after she returned to her chacra?

• None that I could find. Few, if any, Bolivian lawmakers remain in the public eye after leaving office. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Commission assignments

• No notes

Electoral history

• No notes.

Lead

• "served as a party-list member" Don't think it's necessary to clarify that she was a party-list member. Just "member" would be fine.

• Because half of all deputies are elected from a list, while the other half represent individual constituencies, the distinction between each type is small but necessary. Its clearer in Spanish, where each has its own word: "diputado plurinominal" (list) and "diputado uninominal" (single-member). That, and I'd rather not change like thirty other articles to match the removal of the term Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• "She took part in trade unionism" Reads a bit odd. Maybe "She was active in trade unionism" or "She was active as a trade unionist"?

• Agreed. "Was active in" works for me. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Might be worth a wee line about what she did as a representative.

• Not much to go off without just repeating what commissions she served in. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A couple issues with clarity and grammar that need sorting.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Citations are impeccably formatted.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   A couple cases where the inline citations could be more explicit, but no major problems.

   C. It contains no original research:

   All spotchecks of sources verified the text.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Didn't appear to be any cases of close paraphrasing from the sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   As usual, might be worth a wee check to see if there's any information about her after she left office. But I understand this information may not exist.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Only over-contextualisation is properly placed an explanatory footnote, and it's interesting enough to be worth leaving in.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues with neutrality.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Some copy-editing after the article was nominated for GA, nothing major.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Only image is a state photograph confirmed to be licensed under Creative Commons.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Image is properly captioned, with alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Very nice article, as per usual! There's some prose issues that I think are holding this back from a quick-pass, but I think they're easily sorted. Ping me when you've addressed everything and I'll give it another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: Ok, I should be done now with the first batch of comments. Thanks for your patience; holidays and all that have made my schedule quite hectic. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing to everything! Happy to pass this now. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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.