Talk:Rhina Aguirre/GA1

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:29, 24 March 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: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 17:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
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:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Thanks for your work on the article, Krisgabwoosh. It may take me a couple of days to review as I'll need to translate sources into English. Feel free to challenge or discuss any of the points I make. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krisgabwoosh: My only real concerns so far are about the two blog sources, mentioned below, and some of the infobox detail not being cited. If you could reply on the point about the blog sources, I'll do some more spot checks and may have some further comments, but it would really help me to clear that up first. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check

Only one match on Earwig's Copyvio Detector, perhaps unsurprisingly as sources are in Spanish. No concerns with that one.
No concerns about close paraphrasing from my review of some of the sources.

Images

CC, a featured picture. No issues.

Sources

What makes adolfomendozaleigue.blogspot.com/ a suitable archive for the "Trabajamos como nunca en la historia de Bolivia" article?

It's just a mirror site containing an article from Cambio, which was the state-owned newspaper. The original link is unfortunately dead, so I was forced to use this one instead. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes boliviadecide.blogspot.com a suitable archive for the "Figuras históricas en la Asamblea" article?

Similar to the above, it's a mirror site containing text from El Deber, the original link being dead. In both instances, I took the liberty of including the original dead link. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion, I've gone ahead and removed the blogspot sources and left the dead links. It's a bit unfortunate, especially since one of the articles is cited quite frequently, but oh, well. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note to anyone coming here later, the discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Articles_via_Blogs. (I guess this link will break when it gets archived.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and career

Spot check on The eldest of three siblings, Aguirre spent her childhood in relative poverty, raised primarily by her father and stepmother, her birth mother having died when Aguirre was 5 years old - no issues.

Chamber of Senators

exercising the vice presidency - seems like an unusual phrase, how about something like "serving as vice president"?

Changed to 'holding'. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on she became the first blind person ever to occupy a parliamentary seat in Bolivian history - no issues.
Spot check on Upon the conclusion of her term, Aguirre was not nominated for reelection - OK. (I guess that "No postuló a la reelección" from the source does not indicate whether she chose not to stand again, or attempted to stand aggain but failed.)
Spot check on holding the vice presidency of the MAS's Tarija affiliate for some time - no issues

Personal life and death

Optionally, amend Aged 82, Aguirre died on 30 October 2021. to Aguirre died on 30 October 2021, aged 82.

Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on While in exile, Aguirre met Carlos Samaniego, a sociologist from Loja, whom she married - no issues.

Electoral history

No issues

Infobox and lead

Consider combining the first and second paragaphs in the lead, as the first is so short.

Not a blocker to being a GA. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of the infobox info does not seem to be sourced: in office dates; substitutes; Preceded by; Succeeded by; place of death

I find that when it comes to set term dates, there tends to be some leeway regarding always citing start and end dates—the exceptions being if the individuals began their terms late or left office early. The best example I can think of is that most US politician GAs don't generally always cite term dates because they're always set at 'January 3'. Same goes to predecessors or successors, especially when redistricting and the like mean there's no real interaction between who came before and who came after. (See: John Olver, Richard Neal, Barney Frank, etc.). Not sure if that falls on subject-specific common knowledge or something else.

For her substitutes, especially since one resigned mid-term, I went ahead and added the citations directly to the infobox. Likewise, it seems her place of death was just an assumption, as I couldn't find a source on it. I've gone ahead and just removed that. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is her full name as Rhina Aguirre Amézaga simply derived by convention from her parents' names?

Yeah, so most individuals from Spanish-speaking countries derive their two surnames from the first surname carried by their parents. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.