Talk:Néstor Kirchner/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 11:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I've worked on several political biographies, so I'll take a shot at reviewing this over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2017 (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:

   All prose issues have been addressed

   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:

   No issues here.

   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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   AGF on Spanish sources, offline sources

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Seems to address key topics.

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

   All concerns addressed

5. Is it stable?

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

   Article is stable.

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:

   Issues addressed

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All my concerns have been addressed, happy to pass this. Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Specific comments

Early life

• "met the Chilean María Juana Ostoić by telegraphy" Honestly very confused about this sentence: they met by sending telegraphs to each other?

• Still, please link telegraphy.

• I linked to Wireless telegraphy instead, a more precise link. Cambalachero (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd suggest using piped links for the health conditions, to save readers a few clicks.
• "There was heated political controversy at the time" the article describes the causes of the controversy, but not what the actual controversy was about; indeed I'm not even certain "controversy" is the right term: perhaps "turmoil" is what you are looking for.
• Given that we cannot donate much space to a description of the FURN, I'd suggest relying on scholarly descriptions of it, instead of that of members.
• The description of the massacre is a bit passive. "... Ezeiza massacre, in which right-wing Peronist snipers opened fire on a celebration of Juan Peron's return..." or something like that would flow a lot better.
• "Kirchner met Cristina Fernández, three years his junior." You need to say either how or when, preferably both.
• "Although forced disappearances were common during the Dirty War, the Kirchners never signed a habeas corpus;" I do not understand the connection between the two fragments here.

• This is still a little confusing to somebody unfamiliar with the context. Is this worth remarking upon because other lawyers did file habeas corpus to help families of disappeared individuals? Also, what does "in the Dirty war as clients" mean?

• A forced dissapearance means that someone is kidnapped, and the captors never try to ask for a ransom or similar: the person is either kept prisoner at some unknown location, or killed and disposed of in secret. In the context of the time, it was usually the military government which killed the guerrillas this way. An habeas corpus is a legal recourse where you report that the person is missing, and it is suspected that the state may be keeping him in secret. That's a bit long to explain, and goes off-topic. Yes, other lawyers did fill those, such as Raúl Alfonsín (who would become president later). The second part means that not only they did not help the victims of the dirty war at the time, but rather helped the military instead. Cambalachero (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• See, that's a lot clearer (though I knew what disappearances were). I think you should mention two of those key points: that other prominent lawyers were involved in filing habeas corpus, and clarifying that Kirchner's firm helped the military. the "clients" part is what is confusing. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cambalachero; this is still a problem. As written, it is making an implication. This should either be stated explicitly, or it should be removed. I would suggest adding the phrase "which has led observers to suggest that they did not do as much as they could have to help victims of the dirty war" after "never signed a habeaus corpus." Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Cambalachero: my previous comment still applies. This needs to be made explicit ("...never signed a habeaus corpus, leading historians to comment that they had not done all the could to aid victims of the war") or removed. Vanamonde (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is a sentence about that right afterwards. --Cambalachero (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• My apologies, yes, there is. This is adequate.

• Which Peron outlawed the Montoneros?
• Also, the previous time the article mentions the Argentine political system, it's when Campora is elected president; then you mention Peron as president, but not how he came to power; then there's a discussion of a "return to democracy", which is very confusing unless you describe (even in a sentence) the military governments that came in between.
• "a union leader mentioned by Alfonsín." Is "mentioned" really what you mean here?
• Was a single rally all that connected Kirchner to the Peronists, and which got him his government position?
• "Kirchner became known in the province by his 1984 resignation." I think you mean "due to his resignation". Also, do we have information on why he resigned?
• "helped him to victory." can we be more specific? Funded him, campaigned for him, something?
• "Kirchner used the state-owned media to promote his activities." This hints that the use was inappropriate; is the implication intentional? Otherwise, we should rephrase.
• Why was del Val impeached?

Governor

• " Ley de Lemas" should be translated, even if linked, and it's worth mentioning whether he won a plurality or not in the first round.
• Monetary quantities should be in the native currency as well as USD, ideally.

• Thanks to the Convertibility plan, it was the exact same quantity in pesos Cambalachero (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• In that case, I would suggest mentioning that fact in a footnote at the first instance of a currency appearing, and then using pesos from then onwards.

• Cambalachero Is the dollar symbol used for pesos as well? Otherwise, you have a typo here.

• Yes, it's the same symbol. The custom in Argentina is to use $ for pesos, and US$ for US dollars. Cambalachero (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, but most readers are not going to know this; so perhaps you should link to the article about pesos, or find some other way to make this clear.

I simply removed the symbol and said "pesos". --Cambalachero (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've struck this comment above. Vanamonde (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Santa Cruz received $535 million in oil royalties in 1993, which Kirchner deposited in a foreign bank later absorbed by Morgan Stanley." Why is this important, unless it was actually considered improper? Also, what does Morgan Stanley's absorption of the foreign bank have to do with Kirchner?
• "the clause allowing the reelection of the President" link or explain, please.
• "Menem's economic policies" can we have a brief description of these?
• "The province did not generate private-sector jobs, and private companies were driven away." This is a rather absolute statement, especially the first bit, which suggests that zero private-sector jobs were created. Some moderation is probably in order, and possibly more detail.
• Likewise, a journalist interviewed by a journalist is a less than reliable source. What do the scholars say about this?
  • For scholars (at least the ones I have seen so far) Kirchner is only a noteworthy figure from 2003 onwards, when he became president and part of the history of Argentina. Others simply do not talk about him, as his presidency is too recent (in historical terms) and good historians prefer to talk about events that are long past and unrelated to modern politics. The description of events that took place a short time ago is usually a duty of journalism rather than scholars; and Jorge Lanata is a recognized and awarded one. But note that I'm not citing a newspaper but a book, where the author is not rushed by the pressure of daily publications and is free to fully investigate things and describe things with a higher long-term perspective. Cambalachero (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Much better now.
• "Menem unable to run for a third presidential term" perhaps "constitutionally restricted from running..."
• How did the Congress appoint Duhalde president, when he had run against de la Rua? Is this something permitted in the Argentine election system? If so, you should clarify for the people less familiar with it.

• Your explanation below is sufficient, but this should probably be in the article.

2003 election

• " The Peronist candidates" I think you mean all the Peronist candidates"
• "that he would ignore the former president" confusing. I'd suggest "that Kirchner would ignore him if elected."
• "supported either candidate": you've mentioned many more than two potential candidates, but not clarified which of them actually ran: only one of the people approached by Duhalde has been said to have declined.
• "distanced by the two main candidates" "distanced" is odd, here. Might I suggest "substantially behind the two main candidates"
• "the Argentine government had become a" I think you mean the Argentine polity. The government, after all, is not a single entity.

Presidency

• "He arranged for judges to be publicized and evaluated before their proposal to the Congress." This is rather confusing, and a little more detail would be helpful.
• Lavagna's retention has been mentioned once already.
• "high exchange rate for the dollar." Presumably, US dollar?
• "The surplus was aided" I'd suggest "surplus was increased"
• "However, almost 25% of the country, from 8 to 10 million people, were still living in poverty during Kirchnerism, despite of the financial prosperity." As presented, this sentence is a non-sequitur, of the kind politicians are liable to throw around, but which is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. The article could legitimately present any increase in poverty during Kirchner's presidency: or it could say that he was criticized for not reducing poverty enough: but the raw number is a bit irrelevant.
• The article should mention that it was the national debt that was restructured.
• "hostility towards the IMF" Whose hostility?
• "Lavagna refused to be a candidate in the 2005 midterm elections" Why would he have had to be a candidate? Ministers are appointed, are they not?
• "did not continue the parallel track of the 1990s" I am not sure what this means.
• It would probably be appropriate to give a brief explanation of why Kirchner opposed free trade, even in the form of "Kirchner opposed...stating that the free trade area would...etc"
• The parentheses in the second paragraph of the foreign policy subsection are a little odd, and could be omitted.
• "Although Duhalde was not initially against Duhalde" Something's gone wrong here...
• "the PJ is a party that rallies under a single leader, and Kirchner tried to prevent the presence of alternative leaderships in it." This is rather heavy use of editorial voice; might I suggest rephrasing?
• Why did Kirchner want to remove those people from his cabinet?
• The fact that Kirchner had a separate political party of his own needs to be mentioned before this.

• @Cambalachero: This is still an issue. The first mention of the Front for Victory cannot be during the 2005 elections. It needs to be introduced when it first becomes relevant. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Done, with a little clarification. The "party" was first used in the 2003 presidential election, and it mentioned there, but back then it was just a ticket of the PJ with a special and distinctive name (the source called them political parties, but that was just an oversimplifation). It was supposed to fade into oblivion after the elections, as did the other tickets, and Kirchner would have ran for the PJ in later elections. It was in 2005 that, as a result of his conflict with Duhalde, the "Front for Victory" raises from mere ticket into an actual party of its own, running against the PJ in elections. --Cambalachero (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Kirchner operated on the premise that the Dirty War continued, albeit in a different manner." This is confusing, especially for those unfamiliar with the situation.

• This is still an issue; even with the addition of the class struggle phrase. More detail may help.

• How is Lopez' disappearance relevant?
• "for prosecuted people not facing charges in the country." Rather confused by this sentence
• "A creative interpretation of the convention by the courts allowed to skip the statutory limitations" Again, some words missing somewhere...
• There's some inconsistent use of parentheses. If you use them for one clause in a sentence, you should also use them for a clause with a similar role later in the sentence...although I would strongly suggest removing the parentheses altogether.

After presidency

• The article needs at least a sentence discussing why he decided not to run, and how/why his wife became president. You sort of have this later, so you could reorder some of that paragraph, and add a little detail.
  • There was no official explanation for the swap, it was simply done. Before announcing it, Kirchner trolled the press by avoiding clear answers and saying that the candidate would be a "a male penguin (meaning, himself) or a female penguin (meaning, his wife)". And, before the deadline, it was announced that the candidate would be Cristina Kirchner, and that's it. I preferred to leave that silly game out of the article: the important fact is that he did not run, and Cristina did so instead. Cambalachero (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• "He spoke in support of a bill before the Congress at a demonstration at the Palace of the Argentine National Congress." This is confusing: I'm guessing Congress was considering the bill, at the time? That is not clear. Additionally, it would help to say what the bill was doing.
• That paragraph, in general, suggests that there was a bit of a fracas over some agricultural bill, but not what it was about.
• "pushed a media law" What did the law do?

Style and ideology

• "Kirchner's economic views were influenced by the government of Santa Cruz: a province rich in oil, gas, fish and tourism, which focused on the primary sector." I find this sentence confusing. I think you mean that he was influenced by leading the government in Santa Cruz, and that it was the economy of the province that focused on the primary sector.
• "The generation of controversy with other political or social forces and the polarization of public opinion characterized his political style." Not certain what this means. Are you saying this happened, or that it was deliberate? In either case, you should make it clearer.

Embezzlement

• There's a hidden comment stating that "AFIP" needs to be explained, which should be addressed.
  • I created and linked a stub, and clarified that it's the local revenue service. --Cambalachero (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

• The article spends a lot of words saying that Kirchner's death had an impact, but it does not say what that impact was. This is honestly a little bit weaselly (I'm not suggesting it's intentional, but the wording is that way), and is a problem that I've flagged several times now. A LOT better now.
• Not sure why the very last sentence is relevant.
• "A bill was rejected in Apóstoles, Misiones." What bill? Very confusing at the moment.
  • Done --Cambalachero (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'd suggest rewording the next sentence "No locations were renamed in Buenos Aires, as a previous law etc"
  • Being the most important city of Argentina, it should be mentioned either way. If no sentence mentions Buenos Aires, a casual reader may read this and ask: "What about Buenos Aires"? --Cambalachero (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Lede

• "Kirchner sided with Buenos Aires provincial governor Eduardo Duhalde and President Carlos Menem (1989–1999)." This is a little out of place. Either you should say ...sided with [...] during his early career... or you should leave it out. It's too confusing otherwise.
  • I mentioned Menem and Duhalde both to mention Kirchner's relation and to introduce them to the reader, so that they don't come from out of the blue later. Remember that the lede should be easy to understand as a standalone read. Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• "Menem won the presidential election" more detail needed "Menem won a plurality in the first round of the election"
• I really think the "populism" navbox would be more in place in the lede, below the infobox.
  • I placed it in the "Style" section, because it's the section that discusses that specific issue, his government style. Cambalachero (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• "Although the Dirty War had begun, Kirchner did not take an active role." This sentence has the same problem as the one I've highlighted above: it is critical by implication. You can make it explicit "unlike his contemporaries, Kirchner was not involved in activism against the military government during the dirty war" or remove it.

• I've reworded this myself. Vanamonde (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources

• Please check all source formatting; there are some books without a year of publication, others with some hanging parentheses.

• Still some issues, as not all books have isbns.

• You use sfn formatting for some book sources, and not for others. I would suggest that it be used for all sources that you have in the "bibliography" section.

• I've fixed a bunch of harv errors, but there are still two left, in refs 21 and 74.

• The Spanish External Link should have an English description as well, so folks know what it is, and a parenthetical remark saying (in Spanish).

Images

• These two images still seem to have some licensing issues. Could you take a look? If they are not soluble problems, you could remove them, they are not critical. Vanamonde (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Which ones? Cambalachero (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Cambalachero: Sorry, forgot to link them. You seem to have dealt with one: this is the other. Also, how are you getting on with the rest of my suggestions? Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
      • In relation to the URAA, see here: "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA. We are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion of existing content on URAA grounds, without such actual knowledge of infringement or takedown notices." Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay. Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

General comments

 Done Done the fixes pointed for Early life, Governor and 2003 elections. Yes, weird as it sounds, his parents met using telegraphy. The source says: "Néstor Carlos Sr. exchanged telegrams with Maria Juana Ostic, a Chilean of Croatian descent who was also a telegraph operator, but in Punta Arenas. The story ended, as in the stories of García Márquez, in marriage and three children" (and no details on how exactly that worked out). The habeas corpus is mentioned because (as detailed in a whole section) they placed great emphasis on the events of the dirty war during their presidencies; their actual actions at the time (or lack thereof) are thus of interest for their biographies. Montoneros were outlawed by Juan Perón, I don't think it's needed to clarify it because that's the only Perón mentioned so far in the article. The use of state-owned media for political advertising is mentioned as a negative thing, usually done by populist regimes. I did not find English sources that gave a name to the "ley de lemas", so I mention it in italics as a non-English word (see for example "The Dictionary of Contemporary Politics of South America", in English, which still calls them in the Spanish form). The thing with the oil royalties is mentioned because it became controversial, as the money never returned to the province. Duhalde was appointed president two years after his defeat in the elections, and was chosen because he was still the second most voted candidate and had recently won the local elections in Buenos Aires: of all the politicians available, he was the one with the best popular legitimacy to rule the country, at least until new elections were called. --Cambalachero (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: This is a little picky on my part, but may I ask you to structure your replies such that your reply is immediately after my comment? Otherwise, it's going to be very difficult for both of us, going back and forth between your section and mine. Leave it be for this set, but please do so for all comments you have yet to address, and for the rest that I will add as I resume the review. Vanamonde (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Cambalachero: I'm more or less done with the article. It is generally well researched and written, but there are a number of problems with prose clarity and a tendency not to get to the heart of the matter. I will let you fix these. Please ping me when you are done. Vanamonde (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Cambalachero: I believe eight bullet points remain. In addition, there is inconsistent use of U.S./US throughout the article. Please fix these soon, so we can wrap this up. Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that all issues have been fixed by now. Cambalachero (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• My apologies, I missed your post. I'll try to wrap this up in the next couple of days. Vanamonde (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Cambalachero: I have checked over the whole thing once again. A couple of older issues are still unresolved, and there were three minor points that came up because of new information. Let's get this done. Vanamonde (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)