Talk:Jorge Sampaio/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: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 15:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's always great to see heads of state nominated for GA, especially for non-Anglosphere nations. I'll have this reviewed within the next day or two. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Alsoriano97, I've begun reviewing the sources, and it looks like there may be serious WP:text source integrity issues where the citations do not support the text behind them. With spot checks turning up this many problems, it's likely that most or all of the citations are going to have errors. An article can't qualify as a GA if there are suspected text-source integrity issues. I've listed the ones that I checked below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Thebiguglyalien. Sampaio's article was updated by me and extended after he passed away to be included in Main Page via Candidates, and some of the sources you mention were already in the article before, so I assumed AGF at first. Mea culpa. Now I'm on vacation for a couple of weeks, but I'll fix everything you indicate in my spare time. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there have been too many times where I nominated an article for GA and realized that some of the old citations were no good. Now I try to check or replace all of the citations in an article before I nominate it. There are probably other text source integrity problems besides the ones that I listed. The biggest problems are the ones where it's a few citations at the end of a long paragraph. You might have to rework those ones entirely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Alsoriano97, I've checked the rest of the article. There are a lot of grammar errors and sentences that need to be changed. I don't think this article was ready for GA when you nominated it. In the future, I suggest requesting a copy edit at the Guild of Copy Editors before nominating an article to GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Alsoriano97, it's up to you how you want to go forward with the review. If you think you can get all of the copyediting done yourself (what I listed below and anything else that might need to be fixed), then you can do that and I'll look through the article again afterward. If you want to do more work on the article, or if you want to put in a Guild of Copy Editors request, then we can close the review for now and you can renominate it whenever you like. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I have not been very active these days on Wikipedia. I'm back from vacation so I can dedicate some time to it. I think the most sensible thing to do is to go to the Guild of Copy Editors (although, as a note, I think it is easily understandable that, not being a native English speaker, there are grammatical errors that have been detected by someone native and/or professional, although, when I nominated it in Candidates, it was not pointed out). We close the review and, when everything is fixed, we will come back to it. Do you agree? Cheers. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to close the review. You can renominate it at any time once you believe any issues have been addressed, and then I or any other reviewer who's interested can write a review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

General notes:

• Each time a new paragraph starts, it should say "Sampaio" first instead of "he" so we know that it's still talking about him.
• There are a lot of really short paragraphs. Try to make it so that there aren't any paragraphs that are just one or two sentences long.
• There are a lot of sentences that are like "on this day, this thing happened". It makes the article feel like a list or a timeline instead of an article.
• There were a lot of missing commas, but I added them.

Lead:

• He was an opponent to the dictatorship of Estado Novo – It should say "was an opponent of the dictatorship", but it might be better to say "he opposed the Estado Novo".
• who participated – he participated.

Early life and political career:

• The sentence about his mother's family is long and goes into a lot of detail. Is this important information?
• putting tapes on the windows – "tape" is this case is a non-countable noun, so it's always just "tape", not "tapes".
• he returned to her aunt and uncle's house – Is this supposed to be his aunt and uncle's house?
• from the USA – Wikipedia uses U.S. or US, not USA.
• to the Law course – "Law" doesn't need to be capitalized here.
• following his father's advice, – Like I said in the source check, it's unclear whether his father's advice was to be a lawyer or to enter politics.
• Also in his office were made the documents that opposed the exile of Mário Soares – I think there might be a translation issue here. What were these documents? "Opposed" in this context means "didn't like" or "argued against", but that's not really what documents do. The sentence structure is also backward: it should be Also, the documents that opposed the exile of Mário Soares were made in his office or Also, his office was where the documents that opposed the exile of Mário Soares were created.
• who Sampaio would end up being the successor – This should be to whom Sampaio would end up being the successor. Even better would be whom Sampaio would eventually succeed.
• as a directive – A directive is an instruction. Is this supposed to say "director", meaning the person in charge?

Carnation Revolution and political beginnings:

• The article should say what the Carnation Revolution is. Maybe "during the Carnation Revolution that overthrew the Estado Novo".
• abandoned the political project – "abandoned the party" or "abandoned the movement" would fit better.
• Is there more to say about MES and its Marxist–Leninist ideology? Why did Sampaio create it if he didn't like that ideology?
• he participated in the barricades – Not sure what "barricades" means here. Were people standing in the way to stop them from going? If that's it, it should say "human barricades".

Mayor of Lisbon:

• Also in 1989 – This is a new section, so it doesn't need to say "also".
• and at the initiative of Sampaio himself – What did Sampaio do here? It's unclear.
• What are the PDM and PER? What were they supposed to do? Did they conclude because they were successful or because they failed?
• for that year presidential election – Should be either for that year's presidential election or for the presidential election that year.
• The last sentence of this section is very long, and it could be split into two sentences.

First term: 1996–2001:

• candidacy that – should be "a candidacy that".
• and resigned as mayor of Lisbon – This doesn't make sense here, but it can just be removed because the article already said that he resigned in the last section.
• There was also a historic coincidence – This isn't really a coincidence. It can just say "this was the first time that the president's party and the prime minister's party coincided".
• Few weeks after his inauguration – Should be "A few weeks after his inauguration"
• he requested a request – It doesn't need to say request twice. Also, it doesn't make sense to say that someone requests a temporary impediment. Maybe it could say he requested that the Constitutional Court appoint a temporary acting president or he informed the Constitutional Court that he had a temporary impediment.
• by a S. L. Benfica cheerleader – The source says it was the pt:No Name Boys, so maybe link to that instead.
• was killed by a rocket – Do any sources say what kind of rocket? If it says rocket without saying what type, it sounds like a big military weapon.
• In Oslo in 1999... – It's hard to tell what this sentence is trying to say. Can we cut the part about the Nobel Prize winners and write it like this: "In Oslo in 1999, Sampaio participated in a CNN debate against Indonesian ambassador to the UN Nugroho Wisnumurtio, where Sampaio supported the independence of East Timor." This is simpler and clearer.
• led to the holding of an independence referendum – This would be easier to read if "the holding of" was deleted.
• especially Bill Clinton's administration – add "in the United States".
• made contacts for – "arranged for" makes more sense.
• He visited Timor – This should say "Sampaio visited Timor" so we know that it's not still talking about José Ramos-Horta.
• but had to cut short the visit – "but had to cut the visit short".
• and Xanana Gusmão was already free – It can just say when he was president. The article doesn't talk about any imprisonment, so it's confusing to say that he's free.
• His participation in that ceremony was doubted in March of that year – What does this mean? Should it say "there was doubt about whether he would attend the ceremony"?

Second term: 2001–2006:

• From that moment on – This can be deleted. It can just say what he believed.
• In fact he thought – "In fact" can be removed.
• he was not competent as president – competent usually means "smart enough" or "skilled enough", so this is insulting to Sampaio. I think this is meant to say "but as president, he did not have authority over foreign policy measures".
• toppled the government of António Guterres – toppling a government usually means that the entire country is taken over by a military. How about it "ended the premiership of António Guterres"?
• On the other hand is an informal expression and should be removed.
• but quite the opposite – This doesn't add anything and it can be removed.

Personal life and death:

• attended by the highest national institutions – An institution can't attend a ceremony. Maybe it was "attended by prominent national figures" or something like that.

Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear to be reliable. No issues from Earwig. There's a good number of primary sources here in the form of newspapers and government websites; I don't think the way they're used creates any original research or POV issues, but it's something to keep in mind.

Spot checks – For Portuguese language sources, I've used machine translation to determine whether it roughly supports the claims and will ask for clarification if necessary:

• Wise (2021) – Checked all uses. Most of the places it's cited have little to do with what's written in the source.
  • This source doesn't support his date of birth. It seems to imply that his family was upper/middle-class, but it only says middle class so that's what we should go with if the article is going to mention this.  Done. added source on his birth date and removed reference to "upper" class
  • his father Arnaldo de Sampaio (1908–1984) – Not in the source  Done. added source about who his father was
  • This source is used to cover almost all of the next two paragraphs and one more in the next subsection, but it supports almost nothing in any of them.
• Antunes (2021) – Checked all uses through machine translation.
  • Does this article or Valdemar (2021) support that Daniel is specifically an adolescent psychiatrist, or that he's a writer?  Done. maintained only that his brother is a professor and psychiatrist, as the referenced source indicates
  • Doesn't appear to support anything under the "Mayor of Lisbon" subsection.  Done. source removed
• Valdemar (2021) – Checked to see if it covers what Antunes (2021) does not. Confirmed that Daniel is an academic, but not that he's an adolescent psychiatrist or a writer.
• Luís (2021) – Checked all uses through machine translation. I was unable to find the date of the referendum or any mention of events of extreme violence and massacres in this source.  Done. added a report that records the date of the referendum and the violence committed
• Moreira Rato (2021) – Checked all uses through machine translation.
  • Does this support that he was elected with CDU or anything else about the political parties?  Done. I have edited the paragraph to make it more in line with what the SAPO 24 indicates. Moreira's article only indicates the percentage of votes received by Sampaio's coalition.
  • Does this support anything about the Chiado district or the museums? No, the other source cited does
  • For the first time in the country's democratic history, the government and the president of the Republic were from the same political party. – This looks like WP:Close paraphrasing of the source.  Done fixed
  • Does this support the claim about female Afghan students? Yes. "Um dia antes do internamento, anunciou, num artigo no Público, a vontade de preparar um reforço do programa de emergência de bolsas de estudos e oportunidades académicas para jovens afegãs=A day before the hospitalization, he announced, in an article in Público, his willingness to prepare a reinforcement of the emergency program of scholarships and academic opportunities for young Afghan women."
  • Does this support that Dias is the daughter of António Jorge Dias and his wife Margot Dias (née Schmidt)?  Done added other sources

After checking the sources, there appear to be possible WP:Text source integrity issues that need to be addressed. If these exist throughout the article, then it's not going to be eligible as a GA without a major reworking. I would prefer you to specify this. Thanks.

I'm worried that all of the citations have problems like this. I'll check a few more after the issues above get fixed. If there are still more problems, that means it's probably the entire article that has the problem. Then you'd need to take the article out of GA for a bit and redo all of the sources. I've had to do that with a few articles before, and it can be a pain. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there are some paragraphs where you can find that problem, but I tried to make sure that each line with content has the corresponding and correct font. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Alsoriano97 It's been a few days without any changes. Is the article ready for another spot check? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure! _-_Alsor (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This time I'm going to pick out a few paragraphs to make sure every claim is supported by the sources.

• Third paragraph of "early life and political career" cited to Wise and RTP – Good.
  • Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon – Wise.
  • student resistance and the 1960s academic crisis – RTP. (Wise says he joined it, but not that he played a key role)
  • led the Lisbon students union – Wise.
  • graduation in 1961 – Wise.
  • career as a lawyer – Wise.
  • entering politics, following his father's advice – It looks like RTP says his father's advice was to be a lawyer, not to enter politics.
  • assault on the Beja Barracks – RTP.
  • the Vigília da Capela do Rato protest – RTP.
  • opposed the exile of Mário Soares – RTP.
  • the Portuguese Bar Association – RTP.
• Second paragraph of "Carnation Revolution and political beginnings" cited to RTP and JN. – Good.
  • co-founded the Movement of Socialist Left – RTP says April, JN says May.
  • strongly opposed its Marxist-Leninist ideology – JN
  • participated in the barricades – JN
• Second paragraph of "Second term: 2001–2006" cited to Luís and Simões – Good.
  • caught him at a lunch – Luís.
  • acknowledged in an interview in 2016 – Simões.
  • Azores summit would have the real objective of avoiding war – Both.

Based on this sample, it looks like the sources generally match up. I'll have the other criteria reviewed soon.

Broad in its coverage

The article covers his entire life without going into excessive detail. If you wanted to expand it more, you could find more information about his political beliefs and his philosophy, but that isn't necessary for GA.

Neutral

• the fascist Estado Novo regime – It's debated whether Estado Novo was actually fascist or if it just took some ideas from fascism. Since it's unclear, the article shouldn't call it fascist.
• East Timorese struggle – "struggle" is a strong word with lots of emotion attached. Maybe change this heading to "East Timorese crisis" to match the article or just "East Timorese independence".
• This was followed by events of extreme violence and terror – These are very strong words. How about just "This was followed by violence"?
• and it was the appropriate occasion for Portugal – This is an opinion. The article should just say what happened.
• the solemn act of the transfer of sovereignty – We don't get to decide what's solemn.
• He was shy, cried easily, was discreet and had a bad temper, but above all he was known for an altruistic character – These are subjective and probably shouldn't be in the article.

Stable

No reason to expect major changes.

Illustrated

All images are licensed under Creative Commons.

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.