Talk:Valence populism

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Valence populism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Femke (talk · contribs) 18:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term, so decided to take up the review to learn more. The article looks good at first glance :). Will see if I can finish the review before the end of the weekend. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of my comments relate to the "understandable to a broad audience" criterion, but I've got some other prose suggestions too.

• Given the fact populism is defined in different ways, would it be good to introduce what populism is in the article?
  • I could, do you think that a paragraph at the top of the Definition section would be enough?
    • If you can formulate a clear sentence for the lead, that would help, but otherwise, a paragraph in definition suffices. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
      • I've added a paragraph in the definition section.
        • Which contains new jargon (populism is "thin-centered"). Can you omit?
          •  Done
• Relatedly, how does valence populism differ from single-issue politics? Or is that not a contrast sources make?
  • I do not remember seeing anything related to that concept in the sources. I've added the article to the See also section, however.
• The term valence / valence issue is now defined implicitly (in the sentence after it's introduced), and with jargon ("non-positional"). It would be good if this is defined more explicitly. Only in the sentence after does the concept of consensus come in, but it's too late to feel like it's part of the definition.
  •  Done
    • Not quite yet: I think the term valence should be explained in the lead per WP:EXPLAINLEAD. Furthermore, the sentence now says: "Issues that valence populists also concentrate on are also issues that are widely approved by voters". This implies the broad consensus is an extra, rather than the definition of valence issue. Furthermore, you use non-positional later in the text but without introducing what it means.
      • Okay, I did not quite understand at first where you wanted the change to be made. I've made some improvements to the lede and that part of the definition. If you think that it could still be improved, please tell me. I've removed "non-positional" altogether from the article.
        • Almost there. I would split the sentence up after "widely approved by voters". Then start the following sentence with "Such popular valence issues" (implicitly defining it by using a tautology..) "include anti-corruption, as well as blah blah. Not sure if we need the first time a valence issue was defined in the definition. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
          •  Done Thanks!
• Parties that espouse valence populism --> is espouse the correct term here. Given that populism is often used dejoratively, do these parties identify with the term? Valence populist parties might be a better intro?
  •  Done I've merged this sentence.
• I don't understand what this quote means: "Roberts has also said that "positional and valence competition are not mutually exclusive""
  •  Done Removed.
• Bit of a personal preference, but I don't think the following sentence is necessary (as it's not adding much directly, and is quite complex): Political scientist Dani Filc has said that Zulianello's and Guasti's approach and definition of valence populism are "enlightening" and that their argument is important because it emphasises the complexity of populism. Similarly, I think we can drop "Naxera, Stulík, and social scientist Vojtěch Kaše have described valence populism as a "frequently discussed concept".", as it's a meta-statement that may be unnecessary detailed.
  •  Done Removed.
• I don't understand the following sentence: "He has noted that valence populism could exploit the power that is inherent in the motives of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation"
  •  Done Removed.
• I don't understand the second bit of this sentence: "In regard to Europe, Zulianello has said that contemporary parties in political science are typically placed on two axes, an economic and socio-cultural one, and thus even populist parties "primarily engage in positional competition" among these axes.". The statement on the axes can probably the without inline attribution, as it's a fact.
  •  Done Clarified.
• He has explicitly noted --> They have noted?
  •  Done Clarified.
• A similar variant of non-positional populism to valence populism --> Similar to what? And do we need both non-positional and valance here? What is the difference?
  •  Done Clarified.
• Valence populist parties achieved their best result ever in the 2019 election, when six parties gained representation --> Given that we had elections this year, a 2021 source cannot be used for the word "ever". Replace with "yet"?
  •  Done
• I think European Union is a better link for anti-Euro (the capital in the cited source is a give-away that it's not only the currency).
  •  Done I've changed the link to Euroscepticism.

Will do a more thorough source check later. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @Femke:. I've addressed your comments. I'll wait for you to reply to the first comment before I add the definition of populism at the beginning of the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Second read:

• The first sentence is a bit awkward and resembles the discouraged WP:REFER structure. What about "Valence populism is a form of populism linked to political parties or politicians whose positions cannot be clearly placed on the left–right political spectrum."
  •  Done

The first sentence here (and the equivalent sentence in definition) is too long for comfortable reading now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Valence populism is also an anti-establishment ideology that lacks a consistent ideology, unlike left-wing or right-wing populism. --> And ideology without an ideology? That seems odd.
  •  Done
• Political scientist Mattia Zulianello has defined --> throughout you write a lot in the past tense. Would it make sense to put this in the present tense instead? Or simple past tense? More concise and easier to digest?
  •  Done
• Explain briefly what Peronism is?
  •  Done
• Political scientists Vladimír Naxera and Ondřej Stulík agreed with Zulianello --> Again, bit meta and not necessary.
  •  Done
• Due to it not having a clear ideological position, valence populism is neither exclusionary nor inclusionary. Explain and link what exclusionary and inclusionary are in this context. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I've removed this because the source does not go into detail (this also seems to be a different concept discussed by other political scientists).

• This has also been agreed upon by political scientists Robert A. Huber, Michael Jankowski, and Christina-Marie Juen --> another example of unnecessary meta-discussion. The article is quite heavy on attribution, which makes these sentences break the flow quite strongly.
  •  Done I've reworded that sentence, instead of removing their opinions altogether.
• Zulianello has noted that this approach means that populist political parties could be clearly positioned on the political spectrum, but he disagrees with this --> He noted that they could be positioned, but also said they cannot?
  •  Done Reworded.
• in the middle of the exclusionary-inclusionary poles or of the classic left-right continuum of political orientation --> not sure what exclusionary-inclusionary means here. Link?
  •  Done Removed it altogether, same reason as for the previous mention of exclusionary-inclusionary populism.

Spot checks: I've checked 5 sentences at random. Four were okay, more to check later.

• This may be a language thing, but currently the source about populism in Japan doesn't capture the text. The author argue that left-wing and right-wing populism doesn't exist in Japan, but they have not studied valence populism or agrarian populism. He does not question it's existence in general.
  •  Done Removed it altogether.

Final comments:

• It is not completely clear what determined if something is placed in definition or history.
  • For instance, the description of valence populism as a innovative idea, would that not be something historical?
    •  Done
  • And the description of valence populism as hybrid, would that not be part of the "classification", and therefore part of definition?
    •  Done
  • Why is peronism in the definition section? Doesn't it fit better in either history or political parties?
    •  Done
• Can you explain what is meant by hybrid populism?
  •  Done I've wikilinked hybrid to the relevant term.
• What is anti-systemic populism?
  •  Done I've wikilinked anti-systemic to the relevant term.
• Despite the concentration on valence issues, some valence populists may adopt stances on a limited range of positional issues --> describe what positional is.
  •  Done The more appropriate term here is ideological.
• Pellegrini has also agreed that M5S is valence populist. --> Again, more focus on content, rather than academics that agree. The next sentence already described Pellegrini's opinion indirectly. We want to know why, rather than who thinks this.
  •  Done
• In regard to Europe, Zulianello said that populist parties "primarily engage in positional competition" on the economic and socio-cultural axes. Zulianello disagreed with the approach that populist parties can be positioned on the political spectrum --> This seems contradictory.
  •  Done
• Zulianello has also said that while GERB is a member of the European People's Party and defines itself as a centre-right and Christian-democratic party, it is still a valence populist party --> Why?
  •  Done
• I find it odd to read that co-authors have agreed that (in "Naxera, Stulík, and Kaše" have agreed). Sometimes when I co-author a paper, I don't agree with all the points made in the paper for instance. If I explicitly disagree, I might withdraw co-authorship, but otherwise, I do allow for the first author to put their stamps on the article. The text also is quite supported by the source, which described ANO 2011's leader Andrej Babiš.
  • This paper can be exploited in the definition section, as it questions whether valence populism is a useful term. Might improve the neutrality of the article.
    • I do not see any particular criticism of the term that they listed in the article.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: Thanks for the review. I've addressed your concerns, and if you think that there are still some left, please let me know and I'll fix them. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Not quite there yet. Linking is one of the last-resort ways to make technical articles understandable. I still have to switch to another article to understand hybrid and anti-systemic, and I don't understand the difference with valence populism after reading this article alone.

• You've not yet addressed the text-source issue with Andrej Babis.
• You've not addressed the issue of describing co-authorship as "agreeing"
• They critisize making more and more subdivisions of populism, which includes valence populism. These subdivisions, they argue, cause imprecision in the literature. If you consider somebody as a populist and separately as a neoliberal, you maintain precision in both terms.
• Another new bit of jargon: "According to the ideational approach". I don't know what ideation approach is
• It seems like the lead now contradicts the body (solely focused on valence issues vs " adopt stances on a limited range of ideological issues").

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

All  Done now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

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.