Talk:1987 vote of no confidence in the government of Felipe González

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1987 vote of no confidence in the government of Felipe González/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) 15:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• The title should be bolded
• Wouldn't it be called "was raised/proposed by" rather than was brought by
• The lead mentions the social conflict sparked through the 1986-1987 winter. However, at this point the reader is unaware of any such conflict (note this goes as well for the infobox). Thus, I'd move the section about Hernandez's motives to the second paragraph of the lead. Feel free to reply to this point to discuss how best to do so
• I'd remove some redundant wording in the first sentence of the second paragraph like so: from It was soundly defeated, never having had any real prospects of succeeding as a result of the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) commanding an absolute majority of seats in the Congress. to It was soundly defeated by the absolute majority held by the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) in the Congress.
• The next sentence is a bit long, so I propose a shorter description since the parties are listed in the body anyways: It only secured the votes of two parties, the AP and VU, with the other 15 parties either voting in favor or abstaining. Many delegates did not attend the vote at all.

Background

• What do you mean by "splitting" in this section. Do you mean leaving?
• Coupled to this was the fact [...] This sentence is too long. I'd suggest splitting it into two in the following way: Additionally, Hernandez Mancha was not a deputy but a Senator. This meant that he was unable to engage Felipe Gonzalez directly during debates, limiting this ability to reach out to the general public as leader of hte opposition.

Legal provisions

• Just a small comment here that this section explains Spanish motions of confidence really well to those unfamiliar with them. That's often hard to do with legal procedure, so just wanted to congratulate you on this small note.

Opinion polls

• I'd recommend adding some text to explain the table, as it being stand-alone makes it feel a bit out of place.
• I don't understand why you separate the source for the first opinion poll from the other references in the article.

Events

Prelude and debate

• Separate this into "prelude" and "debate" sections. Currently it is one whole screen of text without breaks, and having another heading would improve the readability. The name itself suggest two parts, in any case.
• I'd separate the first sentence into three sentences, with the second one being a list of the motives and the third one the clause that follows the semi-colon. I currently count 4 clauses without the list, which is way too much for a single sentence.
• I added a {{citation needed}} template where I saw appropriate.
• In his defense of the motion previous to Mancha's speech as candidate on 26 March, Calero argued on the motion's motives that "in the case of a single-party with an absolute majority in the chamber, the motion of no confidence fulfills other subsidiary purposes which were the ones aimed for by this group [...] what we were trying to show with this motion was the Government's inability to deal with the serious problems facing our country". This quote is very long and quite verbose, I suggest it be paraphrased into a shorter version.

Vote

• The vote's footnote is quite unclear. I'd appreciate some clarity both within the footnote and as a reply to this comment on what exactly is the source of disconnect between sources.

Aftermath

• Antonio Hernández Mancha regarded the motion and the vote as a success in "consolidating [AP] as the sole alternative of government",[40][41] even not ruling out the tabling of future, similar motions in each parliamentary session. The second half of this sentence is somewhat unclear.
• the opportunity of it is unclear. I'd suggest rephrasing this section. Does this refer to the bad timing of the motion?
• Among the factors said to contribute to Hernández Mancha's failing to secure any political gain from the debate were that he was a newcomer to national politics—having been appointed as AP leader barely two months earlier—the fact that the ruling PSOE rushed the debate on the motion to the earliest possible date allowed under law (meaning that Mancha had little time to prepare himself), leading to the well-experienced Felipe González and Alfonso Guerra to—in the words of some media—"toy" with him,[17][44] and that the prime minister himself chose to not intervene until the second day of debating, leaving Mancha isolated and his speech exposed to the panning of other parties while depriving him of the parliamentary duel he sought. This sentence is way too long. I'd recommend dividing it into multiple sentences of the form There were many factors [...]. Firstly, [...] which meant that [...]. Secondly, [...] resulted in [...] and thus further weakened Hernandez Mancha's ability to [...]. Etc.
• However, another of the interpretations on the motion's consequences would be better worded as "A different interpretation of the motion's consequences is}} or something along those lines.

Other comments

• The article could benefit from more pictures. I'd suggest photos from the social struggle and those of party leaders sprinkled throughout the article.
• Copyvio returns plagiarism as possible, but that is only in reference to an English translation of the Spanish constitution. Thus, I see no issue with this and find no reason to believe the article is affected by plagiarism.
• Impru20 I'm done commenting on this article for now. I'll be a bit busy over the next few weeks but feel free to ping me when you're done.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Impru20's reply

Thank you for your thorough review, A. C. Santacruz! I will start addressing the aforementioned concerns:

Lead

• "The title should be bolded". I have to disagree with this as per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, since the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence without redundancy (specially when it comes to the links in the opening sentence; since text in bold should not be linked, I would be forced to further reiterate motion of no confidence, Spanish government and Felipe González in the lede in order to be able to link those. Tell me what you think about this, though, if it finally needs to be changed.  Pending.
• "Wouldn't it be called "was raised/proposed by" rather than was brought by" Y Done.
• "The lead mentions the social conflict sparked through the 1986-1987 winter. However, at this point the reader is unaware of any such conflict (note this goes as well for the infobox). (...)" Hmm yes, the point of this is that this is widely regarded by sources and later analyses as more of a vague excuse for the motion rather than a true motive (note that the mention of such conflict is not meant to address the nature of the conflict itself or whether it actually existed at all, it was merely the official reason brought forward by Hernández Mancha to table the motion). Nonetheless, I am open as to how to best address this (if it is to be moved to the second paragraph, what would be, in your opinion, the best way for it to fit in?).  Pending.
• "I'd remove some redundant wording in the first sentence of the second paragraph (...)" Y Done.
• "The next sentence is a bit long, so I propose a shorter description (...)" Y Done (with some adjustments, i.e. "VU" to "Valencian Union (UV)" and "delegates" to "deputies").

Background

• "What do you mean by "splitting" in this section. Do you mean leaving?" Yes. AP–PDP–PL ran as a single entity in the 1986 general election, but the disappointing result led to an internal crisis that saw the PDP (and eventually other deputies as well) splitting away from AP's parliamentary group. I thought "splitting" was the best word there to describe the situation, but I am open to alternative suggestions!  Pending.
• "This sentence is too long. I'd suggest splitting it into two (...)" Y Done.

Legal provisions

• "Just a small comment here that this section explains Spanish motions of confidence really well to those unfamiliar with them. That's often hard to do with legal procedure, so just wanted to congratulate you on this small note." Thank you very much for the compliment! That was exactly my intention, to translate legal language into something that is easily understandable by non-legal experts, so it is exciting to know that it actually succeeds in doing so! Like.

Opinion polls

• "I'd recommend adding some text to explain the table, as it being stand-alone makes it feel a bit out of place." Y Done (it can be expanded if it feels not enough, though).
• "I don't understand why you separate the source for the first opinion poll from the other references in the article." Hmm that was an error, actually both opinion polls were meant to be part of the same string of references as others in the article. Y Fixed.

Prelude and debate

• "Separate this into "prelude" and "debate" sections (...)" Y Done.
• "I'd separate the first sentence into three sentences, with the second one being a list of the motives and the third one the clause that follows the semi-colon." Seems appropiate. Y Done.
• "I added a citation needed template where I saw appropriate." Actually, all statements noted as "citation needed" were cited: two of them in the references at the end of the paragraph (I wished to avoid too much over-referencing, but I have re-added those citations were explicitly needed). The third one was simply me missing out to re-cite the source. Y Fixed.
• "This quote is very long and quite verbose, I suggest it be paraphrased into a shorter version." Y Done.

Vote

• "The vote's footnote is quite unclear. I'd appreciate some clarity both within the footnote and as a reply to this comment on what exactly is the source of disconnect between sources." The disconnect is in the Journal of Sessions of the Congress, which gives a result of 66 votes in favour of the motion and 195 against. This was replicated in some of the sourced media, as it was the "official" count made by Congress. However, other sources (as well as a manual count of the register of deputies voting for each choice, as included in the Journal source itself) gives the result as 67 'Yes', 194 'No' (which is also consistent with the parties' parliamentary composition at the time). This was probably a transcription error, with the accurate result being 67–194, but I thought that the footnote should be included to give more clarity to anyone consulting the sources and seeing some of them giving the 66–195 result instead. The source of the error was probably there being one Congress Bureau member voting 'Yes' that is shown separately in the list, so he was probably included in the 'No' camp erroneously (though this is my own perception of the cause behind the disparity). Awaiting for your opinion on this in order to clarify this further in the footnote if required.  Pending.

Aftermath

• "The second half of this sentence is somewhat unclear." Yeah, this was probably the result of some verbosity on my part back when I wrote it. It was basically meant to say that Hernández Mancha did not rule out filing future censure motions if required. This can be improved. Y Fixed.
• "the opportunity of it is unclear (...)" Yeah, it refers to the motion's opportunity. I also saw it as unclear when fixing the previous sentence and before reading your opinion on this particular expression. I have reworded it as "the motion's opportunity". Y Fixed.
• "This sentence is way too long. I'd recommend dividing it into multiple sentences (...)" Y Done (check whether this wording addresses your concern, though, as I had to make it adapt to the whole paragraph).
• "(...) would be better worded as "A different interpretation of the motion's consequences is" or something along those lines" Y Done.

Other comments

• The article could benefit from more pictures I will look for picture possibilities to add into the article. Back at the time I found none proper enough, though things may have changed now.  Pending.
• On the copyvio issues: noted. As you said, it is probably the cited phrase from the Constitution in the "Legal provisions" (which I think is necessary to put the motion's procedure into context). Like.

With this, I think I have addressed (or am in process of addressing) the points you have highlighted. Feel free to respond whenever you are able to! Again, thanks for the thorough review! ;) Impru20^talk 12:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll be a bit busy so it'll take me a bit before I can check. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Impru20, apologies for taking so long, I had forgotten about this in-between flights and deadlines. On the disagreements:

• Bolding the title: sure, not bolding makes sense here.
• On mentioning the social conflict in the lead: I agree that it's more an excuse than a reason for the motion, but it is still unclear what the social unrest was (was it race-related social unrest, similar to Bleeding Kansas? economy-related social unrest, such as wide general strikes or mass in/deflation? etc.). A small clarification on the nature of the unrest would be helpful here. I know it is mentioned later, in the "Background", but we need to remember 90% of people only read the lead so a sentence giving some context to the mention of unrest would be enough to give them some of this information.
• On "splitting": something like "first with the departure of the People's Democratic Party (PDP) in July 1986," could work.
• The text alongside the opinion polls is still not enough to make it be its own level-2 header, so I suggest making it a level-3 header instead. I'd suggest placing it right after the "Debate" section.
• On the footnote: I understand what the issue is, what I mean is that the footnote does not explain it very clearly. However, the manual count of the deputies picking each choice as per de Journal itself in particular does not clarify if this manual count is the more accurate one. I'd suggest adding The Journal of Sessions of the Congress incorrectlysummarizes [...]. However, the more accurate manual count of the deputies' choices gives a [...]'. Indented text is my own addition/rephrasing.
• On images: perhaps one of those seating charts with colored dots showing the votes could be added? I know those are a bit of work to do but it would be nice. Just a suggestion.

Once again, sorry for the delay. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: So, to address these:

• Bolding the title. Y Solved.
• I see. I have added some context for it (as well as further clarified it somewhat in the "Prelude" section). Y Solved.
• On "splitting": solution implemented, I believe this would work now. Y Solved.
• Done! Y Solved.
• I have also implemented your proposal on the footnote (while also clarifying that the incorrect count was replicated by media outlets at the time). Y Solved.
• On images: I am not convinced by your proposal, basically because the only logical place I could see for it would be the "Vote" subsection (which already includes a table listing the voting results in a clearer way, with your diagram proposal fulfilling no additional purpose...). This is tricky since there are not that many free images of this event (or even of Hernández Mancha himself!). Not sure if this is a requirement for the article to proceed to GA though.

Worry not, I have been busy with RL issues as well! Many thanks for taking your time to review the article! Impru20^talk 19:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

All good to go then, Impru20. Congratulations! Always nice to see GAs about Spanish topics. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)