Wikipedia:Peer review/Eva Perón/archive1

Eva Perón

I was hoping that someone with some experience would offer some insight into how this article could be improved. I have already worked hard on this article, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia and therefore inexperienced. I think that overall what this article needs is stylistic direction, including notation, etc. I think that I have done all I can to add to the factual aspect of this article, but now it needs stylistic direction. I think that this article deserves the work because Eva Peron is a huge icon and international icon, and arguably the most famous South American in history (aside from, perhaps, Che Guevara). I think that an icon of this magnitude deserves a "featured article" treatment, and I myself am not able to provide that at this point. Also, this English language version of the page is currently used as the template for several foreign language Wikipedia pages, so any improvements to this page will result in improvements to many other pages around the world. Thank you. Andrew Parodi 09:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great article! It's better than some of the featured ones I've seen. I learned a lot. Good job! Sarah crane 16:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That means a lot to me. I've worked hard on this article. This article is basically the result of more than a decade of research, which included a trip to Argentina. Andrew Parodi 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• For Featured Article consideration it will require proper inline citations. This can be started by converting the external links in the body into footnotes (see m:Cite/Cite.php and Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources). The FA criteria requires an "appropriate" use footnotes which, in this case, means they should direct the reader to reliable sources that back up opinions or statements that could be challenged. Some of these statements can avoild referencing with more appropriate wording (see WP:AWW and WP:APT) For example, statements like these require a reference:
  • "Eva María Duarte's birth certificate places her birth at the city of Junín, Buenos Aires Province, but there are some doubts around it."
  • "Some versions suggest she..."
  • "Nevertheless, other versions supporting the certificate indicate that..."
  • "Eva has often been credited with organizing..."
  • "Most historians, however, agree that..."
• See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) for the appropriate wording of section titles. The sub-sections "Eva moves to Buenos Aires" and "Eva's childhood" could be merged into a section called "Early life".
• To help the writing, avoid those one- (or two) sentence paragraphs.
• Refer to Joan of Arc and Hugo Chavez for well-done articles on similar cultural figures. --maclean25 17:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I have wanted that proper type of inline citation, but I haven't known how to do it. Thank you for showing me how. I will study the Joan of Arc and Hugo Chavez articles and see where improvements can be made. This is very exciting. Andrew Parodi 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

• This article isn't very neutral. -Osbus 21:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see a lack of neutrality? -- Andrew Parodi 05:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

1. (commonly known by the affectionate diminutive Evita) Affectionate? Diminutive? You'd be better off cutting out those adj.'s
2. First Lady she came to exercise more power and influence within the government than anyone but her own husband.
3. she wielded a charismatic influence that has few historical parallels outside of hereditary monarchy.
4. During her life, Evita was the most powerful woman in Argentina, and most historians agree that she remains the most powerful woman in the history of her nation and the entire South American continent. At the time of her death, she was arguably the most powerful woman in the entire world. I stopped reading after this blatantly biased sentence. --Osbus 20:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I'll address each concern below:

I agree that the term "affectionate diminutive" is a bit biased, but it is factual to state that the name "Evita" was a nickname and was used affectionately by the Peronist supporters. In official documents, she was never known as "Evita" but as "Eva Peron" or "Maria Eva Duarte de Peron." In other words, those who referred to her as "Evita" did so out of affection; those who did not like her, such as the military, the oligarchy, etc., never referred to her as "Evita." They referred to her either as "Eva Peron," "Eva Duarte de Peron," "that woman," or worse....

The statement that she exercised more power and influence than anyone within the government but her own husband is not a biased statement. It is backed up by a great deal of research and many biographies. If anything, my treatment of this situation in the article is far more neutral and middle road than what is often said; it is often said that she had MORE power than her husband, which is not true. And the fact that she was so powerful, the second most powerful person in the country during her time, was one of -- if not THE -- main reason her opposition hated her. It is relatively uncontroversial to say that she had more power than even the Vice President under Juan Peron; the Vice President's name is all but lost to history because Evita outshined him in every regard but military ceremonies.

The statement that she weiled an influence with few parallels outside of hereditary monarchy is factual. She was basically the Princess Diana of South America. She was loved by the poor and working classes of the entire continent, not just Argentina. In the words of a man that I knew who was from Ecuador, "Eva Peron was like the mother of the working class of all of Latin America." Further, this statement is a paraphrasing of a direct statement from scholary biographies. Even Eva Peron's strongest critics, such as Mary Main (author of The Woman with the Whip) would not argue that she was loved deeply loved. Again, this deep love the working class and poor felt for her was one of the reasons the opposition hated her so greatly.

The statement that she was the most powerful woman in South America during her life, and most likely remains the most powerful woman in South American history, is not biased. That is a verbatim transcription of statements of many scholars. That she was arguably the most powerful woman in the world at the time of her death is also a commonly made statement. We must remember the context she is in. She died in 1952. When Eva Peron first became First Lady of Argentina in 1946, women in Argentina were not even allowed to vote. In other words, women were very powerless at this point.

Perhaps what really happened is that you were surprised by the, well, emotional content of the article. Evita is a very controversial and very emotional figure. She is perhaps one of the most fought over, debated, analyzed, hated, and loved figures of the 20th Century. All of which makes me think that writing an objective article about her may be too difficult.

However, because all of the issues I address above have been written about by scholars, perhaps this issue can be settled by directly referencing the scholars themselves. Maybe I'll rework the intro paragraphs to directly reference the scholars who made these statements.

Thanks again for the feedback. -- Andrew Parodi 22:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, referencing the scholars would be a great idea, or readers like me will be left in the dust with blatant bias. And the fact that scholars have been saying this does not mean anything- scholars may be biased themselves. I'm almost positive that there is at least one scholar in this world who agrees Peron was not the most influential.

Don't start the article with adjectives. Your purpose is to show the reader how Peron is the most influential, not just merely tell them. I have no problem with your saying she was influential. I am a little concerned with your saying she was the MOST powerful woman in the ENTIRE world. In saying that, I still believe that it is biased. Btw, if you are copying verbatim, you should cite/reference the scholars anyway.No problem for the feedback.--Osbus 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am "copying" the content of what people have said, but not the form. I don't think people can copyright facts, such as the fact that she became first lady in 1946, etc. About the statement that she was the most powerful woman of her time, I can source that statement as well. But it is probably better if I do describe how she was powerful. She was something of "liason" between Juan Peron and the unions.

Toward the end of her life she was given the title "Spiritual Leader of the Nation," which means that, in a way, it is hard to objectively describe the power she had because it was not a "rational" power; it wasn't institutionalized. I mean, what exactly is the "role" of a spiritual leader, and how do you verify that the spiritual leader held true power?

Oh, lastly, I don't think I wrote that she was the world's most powerful woman, but that she was "arguably" the world's most powerful woman. I have never heard it argued that she was the most powerful woman in South American history. I think most agree with that statement.

I suppose, as you said, I need to remember that there are people who know nothing about her. I have known a great deal about her since the early 1990s, and so it's hard for me to write from the perspective of someone who knows nothing or little about her. But thanks for the suggestions. Andrew Parodi 03:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)