Talk:Leni Robredo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 09:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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:

   Right now, there are significant issues with the prose. I'm not sure that they are insurmountable in and of themselves, but the prose needs serious work. The bulleted list is the biggest issue, but there are several issues with grammar also.

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

   The list of legislation needs to be summarized and incorporated into the text. I would suggest making a separate section titled "political positions and initiatives" or something like that, and breaking it up into sub-sections by topic if need be.

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:

   All references are listed, and appear to be formatted appropriately

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Several sources are primary sources

   C. It contains no original research:

   Several entries in the "legislative portfolio section are not sourced.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   several instances of close paraphrasing detected. I have removed the most egregious ones, which now means that the article is not comprehensive.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   see previous comment. Additionally, further details on her career as VP, as well as further details about her initial transition into politics. Further information about her personal life might also be helpful.

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

   It is focused

4. Is it neutral?

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

   No particular 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:

   There has been some vandalism, but that shouldn't count against its preparedness, and should hopefully be taken care of by protection. No substantive dispute.

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

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

   I am not an expert in this respect, but all images are tagged as being in the public domain, and sufficient explanations have been given as to why.

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

   Minor issues, see below.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   See closing comments below.

Specific comments

Images

• I would prefer the captions for images 2 and 3 to be a little more detailed; the second caption should mention the fact that he was her husband, and "LP" in the third is confusing without context: can you use the full-form, and link it?

Early life and education

• The first source in the early life section does not mention her date of birth in the text. Is it in the video?
• Is the "Inquirer" source in the same section actually reporting all that biographical information, or is it reproducing the information released by her campaign? From the appearance of the site, it appears to be the latter
• What is the precise law degree that she obtained? That information must be available, surely.
• Since the article is titled "Leni Robredo," I believe the appropriate style is to refer to her throughout as "Robredo" except where it might cause confusion with another Robredo. Thus, she should be referred to as "Gerona." Phrasing the first sentence as "Leni Robredo was born Maria Leonor Santo Tomas Gerona on ..." etc

Early career

• If you are describing her as graduating from law school in the previous section, then it is a little confusing to go back to a period during law school in the next section. IMO you need a phrase in the "Early life and education" describing her hiatus: alternatively, you could simply shift her graduation to this section.
• "integrated area development planning" is jargon that most people will not understand: I'm not sure what it means myself. Can you explain it?
• " a role in which she often took up the defense for cases pursued by her husband, who by then had become Mayor of Naga" this sentence is confusing. Most people would understand her role to be that of a public prosecutor; is this incorrect? Why was she defending cases, and why was the mayor "pursuing" cases? This needs rewriting.
• "Later, the group's focus shifted to include helping rural women to acquire capital in order to become competitive markets." I am fairly certain no woman wants to become a competitive market :) please fix this sentence: I'm not sure what it's saying at the moment.
• "aimed to encourage young legal professionals to take on leadership roles" does not seem to be supported by the source given.
• Source 11 is a video, in which Robredo herself is speaking; as such, it is not a reliable source in this situation.
• I would prefer to see a little more detail with respect to the organization that she founded: right now there is just one sentence.

Political career

• The biggest issue here by far is the bulleted list of her legislative proposals. Many entries are unsourced, and many others are based on primary sources; which means that they should not be in a list at all. IMO only those pieces of legislation on which her contribution has received significant coverage in secondary sources needs to be included here.
• Furthermore, the entire section is written like a resume or CV; and the "portfolio" title does not help.
• Some of the sources seem to suggest that Robredo only ran for office because of her husbands' death: this is not mentioned in the article.
• Voting for an act does not equate to being a "strong supporter" of it: a better source is needed there.
• In the first paragraph, mentioning the names of the two acts without further detail is not very helpful, because most readers are not likely to know what those acts are.
• There are several issues of close paraphrasing in the political career section: chiefly, descriptions of legislation that have been lifted from elsewhere. Some of these are severe enough that I have had to remove them.
• There are several grammatical errors in this section: "mandated that government agencies..." "Concerned that the marginalized sector" (marginalized communities are rarely referred to as a singular sector, etc.

Closing comments

When I began this review I was hopeful that this article could pass, but after digging into it I'm afraid I have to fail it. There are rather too many issues to be fixed within a reasonable timeframe. These include several instances of close paraphrasing, which I've now removed, but which means that the article lacks some information. Furthermore, more details are required in some sections, and the bulleted list needs to be incorporated into the text. There are several bits of unsourced information, some things not supported by the cited source, and some things that are cited to primary sources that need secondary sources. There are several issues with grammar as well. I would suggest the following: fix the issues with citations and copyright, and then submit a request at WP:GOCE, which will hopefully take care of the remaining prose issues. After that the article will stand a much better chance at GAN. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)