Talk:Carmen García (politician)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Well done Krisgabwoosh, I would suggest looking for a fact to nominate to DYK. Good article reviews are not a quid pro quo but if you like it would be helpful to review one or two Good article nominations. Their is currently a drive to reduce the backlog.--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: Llewee (talk · contribs) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krisgabwoosh, I have suggested some changes to improve this article. Please use the Done template or ~~strikethrough~~ to indicate that a problem has been dealt with and add any comments/questions after the points. Thanks, Llewee (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specific issues

"speaking only her native tongue until reaching primary school, where she was made to learn Spanish."- this could do with more clarification, was Spanish the medium of instruction in the school?
The source makes the point that she wasn't exactly a super willing participant; they weren't allowed to use their native language, were physically reprimanded for mispronouncing words, etc. I used the word "made" to get across the gist without going into too much detail, following WP:Summary style. I'm hesitant to use "forced", but maybe there's a more in-between phrase I'm not thinking of. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"before moving back to the Campos Province to finish her secondary education" - include the name of the secondary school if possible
Source only gives: Her secondary education studies were carried out in the Daniel Campos Province. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"García graduated as a primary school teacher from the Franz Tamayo Normal School in Llica." - it would be good to include the year she graduated
Source states that she entered in 1985 but does not give the date she graduated. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"graduating with a bachelor's in intercultural bilingual education from Tomás Frías University and a master's in the same field from the Higher University of San Simón, in addition to receiving a second bachelor's in educational management from Juan Misael Saracho University." - same here
No dates given. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"overseeing the initial stages of reviewing and passing 2010's landmark Avelino Siñani Educational Law" - It may be useful to include some information on the effect this law had.
It truly deserves its own article, but I've gone ahead and mentioned two core points. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

There isn't much information on what she believed or what political positions she supported. The current article gives a vague impression but could do with being more explicit.
As noted in the article, most MAS legislators don't – or are discouraged from – straying much from the positions of their party. Bolivia's closed list system also means that legislators aren't really elected by their personal views. For García specifically, there's not much on her personal positions and her split from the ruling party had more to do with lack of independence than ideological differences. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes nothing about how she was seen as a politician. Was she a high profile figure? Was she popular? Did her ethnic background and sex effect how she was seen?
Very few Bolivian legislators – especially under the more top-down MAS governments – shine as national figures. Approval polling for parliamentarians is uncommon, and when it does happen, most respondents generally know little about their representatives.
The article doesn't include a "personal life" section. Is any information available about her family, interests or hobbies?
One source does mention that she is married with three kids. I'm hesitant to dedicate a whole section to just that, though; I'm generally not a fan of one-sentence sections. I tend to go by Wikipedia:Women in Red's suggestion not to define women by their relationships (See: WP:NOTBYRELATION). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once this new information has been added the lead should be rewritten to include some references to it.

Hi Krisgabwoosh, I will do some more checks on the article this evening. --Llewee (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I can't read Spanish. Many of the sources are PDF's which I can see her name and photograph in and am willing to take their content on trust.
[7] is a page on blogspot. However, the writer's bio implies that he is a established journalist. If that is true the source can be kept per WP:BLOGS.
I'd also note that in this case, the article was published by a reputable source (Página Siete) but the original link is long dead. I figured a re-post by the original writer was preferable than no link at all. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" reflecting the MAS's rigid internal hierarchy, which often discouraged legislators from challenging the party line." you might want to find a different source for this statement as it seems to be based on her own words in [7].
In the absence of a more concrete source on this – there are myriad examples but I couldn't find anything straight forward enough for my liking – I've elected to add an aside clarifying that the sentence is from her perspective. Let me know if that's ok from your viewpoint; I'll see then if I need to look more thoroughly or consider rewording. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few other spot checks suggested no issues.

Copyright

File:Carmen García Mamani (Official Photo, 2012) Chamber of Senators of Bolivia.jpg - is confirmed to have a appropiate licence
I have put the article through an earwig copyvio check (Link here) which presented no issues.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The information in this article is slightly limited for reasons that have been discussed in the review.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

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.