Talk:3rd Plurinational Legislative Assembly of Bolivia/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: SpaceEconomist192  16:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

- Hello, I will be the reviewer for this nomination. Its worth noting that this will be my first review! -- SpaceEconomist192  17:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - Would you like me to address each point as you add them, or wait until the full review is completed? --Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - You can address each point while I add them if you want. -- SpaceEconomist192  10:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

- Finished the review. Waiting for the raised points to be addressed -- SpaceEconomist192  ✐  15:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - Addressed the first round of points and requested some clarification on others. --Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - Responded to the commentaries and clarified my points. -- SpaceEconomist192  ✐  19:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 :</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion

 * Lead
 * - This article could definitely enjoy a longer intro. For instances, there isn't any remark to the multiple controversies and contentions of the legislature. You don't have to explain each one of them, a brief general mention would do the job. I suggest something like this: This legislature has been characterized by multiple controversies, from...to....
 * - That works, I'll add something in.
 * - How's something like this?: This legislature has been characterized by frequent inter-party conflicts and quarrels. The ruling Movement for Socialism failed to attain a supermajority in either chamber —as it had done in the previous two legislative sessions— granting opposition legislators a higher degree of discretion over decisions requiring the support of two-thirds of the assembly. However, amendments to the regulations of both chambers approved by the preceding legislature shortly before this assembly's formal installation abrogated the two-thirds requirement for numerous parliamentary procedures, leading political analysts to note the effective neutralization of the opposition's ability to operate. Subsequent disputes and accusations by the opposition of abuse of parliamentary procedure purportedly perpetrated by the ruling party have resulted in disorderly behavior and even physical violence during legislative sessions regarding the election of members to commissions and the passage of controversial bills.
 * - Looks good, apply this change and I will pass the article!
 * - Done! Thank you so much for you efforts in reviewing this article. I'll see you in about three and a half years when this legislature closes and the article inevitably needs to be reassessed. Cheers!


 * History
 * - Isn't it better to rename this section to "Controversies" since all sections and subsections are related to disputes between parties and other contentions?
 * - I know that Wikipedia tries to avoid a "controversies" section on biographies; not sure if that's also the case on articles like this. Nonetheless, in politically tumultuous countries like Bolivia, inter-party conflict, abuses of the system, and accusations of the like are considered par for the course rather than particularly controversial (save for outright brawls). This article will continue to be updated until the next legislature in 2025, so "history" applies better in my opinion as it will cover all major undertakings legislators go through.
 * - I was not aware of it. Let it be History then.
 * Two-thirds controversy
 * - Wikilink suggestions for some technical terms: supermajority, MAS, hemicycle, absolute majority, Chamber of Deputies, Senate, ombudsman, comptroller, prosecutor general.
 * - Added links to all except "absolute majority", which just links to "supermajority".
 * - There's two almost sequential mentions that MAS was 14 seats short for the supermajority,  leaving the MAS fourteen seats short. and right after, leaving it fourteen behind of the 110 . I suggest the removal of the first one.
 * - They refer to two different things. The MAS was fourteen seats short of a supermajority in the Chamber of Deputies as well as being fourteen seats short of a supermajority in a plenary session (combined) of both the Senate and Deputies. Perhaps this should be rewritten for ease of understanding.
 * - Hold on. It doesn't make sense then. If they are 14 seats short in the Chamber of Deputies, then they necessarily have to be ≥14 seats short in the plenary session and in this case they are also three short in the Senate, so they are actually seventeen seats short in a plenary session.
 * - Oh gosh I hate math. Lemme calculate this out. There are 36 Senators and 130 Deputies totaling 166 legislators in a plenary session. With their combined 21 senators and 75 deputies, the MAS has 96 legislators in a plenary. 110 legislators out of 166 is required to hold a supermajority (66%). 110-96=14 (check). In the Senate, they need 24 out of 36 senators to reach a 66% supermajority. They have only 21: 24-21=3 (check). In the Deputies, they need 87 out of 130 deputies to reach a 66% supermajority. They have only 75. 130-75=12. Aha! I found the issue. The cited article was written on the 23 of October, after the elections but before they legislature took office. It states that the MAS only won 73 deputies It seems at some point between the article being finished and the formalization of the results, the MAS gained two seats (unclear how, likely something to do with party list proportional representation). So rather than 14 seats, they need 12 for a supermajority in the Deputies. I've changed it accordingly.
 * - 130/3=43.3(3) and 43.3(3)*2=86.6(6) so shouldn't it be rounded to 87 instead of 86. This consequentially affects the supermajority in the plenary session, 166/3= 55.3(3) and 55.3(3)*2 =110.6(6). It's probably better if we check the Constitution of Bolivia.
 * - So I found the discrepancy. As mentioned here, the 73 number cited by most sources came with 97.59% of the votes cast in 2020, so the extra two deputies were presumably added once the final vote count was completed. Other than that, all sources agree that for a supermajority, 87 deputies are needed in that chamber, 24 in the Senate, and 110 in a plenary.
 * - I don't why but I read 86 for a simple majority in the Chamber of Deputies. For some reason I cannot access the article but everything appears to be resolved.
 * - A comma is missing in the following phrase: Political analyst Williams Bascopé also noted that the MAS' ability to change the legislative agenda at will provided for the possibility of opposition legislators entering the assembly without being informed of what would be discussed in that session..
 * - Where? A quick check on Grammarly (which isn't perfect) shows no need.
 * - It seemed that there was a comma missing between, at will and provided. At least I found it confusing when I read it in the first place.
 * - Ah, I see. In the case of this sentence, "provided" is defined as "allowed for": "provided (allowed) for the possibility". "Provided" can also men "on the condition of", in which case it would need a comma: "You can go out to lunch, provided you complete your chores first."
 * New assembly building
 * - Most people don't have a sense of how much 473.2 million bolivianos equate to dollars or euros. It would be for the best if a conversion is added in parenthesis.
 * - I can do that, but any conversion I make would be unsourced and, given the rate of inflation, may no longer be accurate to 2021 levels. Personally, converting the amount to dollars or euros would only really give a better sense to people who use those currencies. To be fair though, that is probably a larger proportion of English readers.
 * - There are historical currency converters. Like this one https://www.oanda.com/fx-for-business/historical-rates.
 * - Given that the building had been under construction since 2016, it'd still be difficult to convert. At best I could convert the Bs 400 million to whatever its dollar equivalent was on the date the building was inaugurated.
 * - You're right, it's probably better we left it only in bolivianos.
 * - Fair enough.
 * - Add a wikilink for motif.
 * - Done.
 * - The twelfth source does not mention that the Republic of Bolivia was superseded with the Constitution of 2009, so if a source could be arranged for that it would be great.
 * - Added a citation with a quote: […] the promulgation of the [Political Constitution of the State was] on 7 February 2009, in which Bolivia becomes a Plurinational State. Hopefully that is sufficient.
 * - Great, it is sufficient.
 * Transfuge in the opposition
 * Ethics Commission: split in Creemos
 * - The sixteenth source does not support the following claim, with three of its own deputies and one dissident to the two of CC.
 * - Added citation fourteen which states that: "The commission is made up of the heads: Quintín Villazón Garnica, Rosario García Onofre and Jerjes Mercado of the Movement for Socialism (MAS), Mónica Torres Campuzano and Daniel Prieto Tomelitch of the Civic Community (CC), and Omar Rueda Gutiérrez (Creemos)". Hopefully that is sufficient.
 * - It is sufficient.
 * - On a similar note, the seventeenth source does not support the following claim, while Creemos had constituted itself as a subnational political party.
 * - Correct. Removed.
 * - The twentieth one source does not have any mention of a Gregorio Lanza nor it does support anything in the second phrase of the paragraph.
 * - Indeed it doesn't. I failed to actually add a ref for the cited article. It's now there.
 * - Add wikilink to co-option.
 * - Done.
 * - A clarification is need on whether the Creemos deputies are actually affiliated with MAS or at least they vote in accordance with the party, because there's a statement that they're not associated with MAS, but then on the next paragraph it's said that MAS is now closer to a supermajority, though the TSE rejected Creemos complaint to expel those 4 deputies.
 * - This is why they're marked as "dissidents". In Bolivia, there's a fundamental difference between how a party regards its members and how they're legally regarded.
 * Legally, they're all still members of Creemos. Rudea is correct in saying that Creemos is an alliance not a party and as such has no members to expel. As such, going to their government profiles (cited on their part of the "composition" section) will show them as members of Creemos. In Bolivia, there is a high threshold of required evidence for the Court to rule that a legislator has left their party because, unlike in the U.S., switching parties entails removal from parliament.
 * In effect, however, their own parties have expelled them and do not regard them as members. They're effectively pariahs. Not members of the MAS caucus but not included in Creemos meetings despite still legally being members. For this reason, I chose to show party preference over legal preference as they're effectively removed even if legally they're not.
 * Whether or not they vote in line with the MAS is not something I'm aware of. I included Rueda's statement that he is not aligned with the MAS for the sake of showing both sides, though it should be taken with a pinch of salt because (as stated above) openly announce that you're joining a different party from the one you're elected to entails removal from parliament. Pretty much all sources will state that their alignment with the MAS makes the party closer to a supermajority. Of course, the only demonstrable aspect of this is that the dissident legislators always receive MAS support when being elected to commissions over the candidate nominated by the rest of the party.
 * Quarrel over the Deputies Directive
 * - Additionally, the five Creemos dissidents rejected their caucus' nomination, weren't there only 4 dissidents?
 * - Corrected.
 * - Wouldn't it be better to add the word, unofficial, to the first phrase of the fifth paragraph, With the unofficial adhesion of two deputies from CC..., since they are still dissidents and are not officially affiliated with MAS?
 * -Makes sense, added "effective adhesion". Effective: fulfilling a specified function in fact, though not formally acknowledged as such.
 * Sessions shutting out opposition
 * Military promotions
 * - Add wikilink to organic law.
 * - Done.
 * Ethics Commission II
 * - was is badly applied here: Of these was Deputy Keyla Ortiz, the only opposition dissident.... Edit: hold on. I did a little research and found out a phenomenon in linguistics called inverted sentence. Is this the case?
 * - I'm not familiar with inverted sentences but here's my thinking on adding "was" here. The point trying to be made is "dissidents from both blocs presented themselves [; one of them] was Deputy Keyla Ortiz". However, since it's two sentences, it reads "dissidents from both blocs presented themselves instead. Of these was Deputy Keyla Ortiz". Tell me if it still needs rewriting.
 * - In English, phrases are normally constructed with a subject-verb-object structure but I think this is precisely an example of an inverted sentence. All good then.
 * Ombudsman election
 * - Add wikilink to draft bill. Bill(law)#Preparation.
 * - Done.
 * - Add wikilink to motion (parliamentary procedure).
 * - Done.
 * - I think it's worth noting that the ombudsman election still hasn't take place.
 * - Changing "calling for a new ombudsman" to "calling for the election of a new ombudsman". Hopefully that specifies that only an election was called. When the legislature properly votes to elect one, I'll add it in.
 * - Great, it does specify.


 * Party summary
 * - The layout of this section was poor, so I just transferred the table in the 2020 general election w/ some minor alterations. You can revert it but please make some arrangements in order for the section to be more organized.
 * -The party summary is meant to show changes in membership, vacancies in seats, etc. over time. I modelled it after the articles on U.S. Congresses EXAMPLE. Could you possibly expand on what exactly you take issue with so that I can know what to correct?
 * - Its just that the spacing between the two tables and slideshows, both horizontally and vertically seems excessive. I tried to clog them but it wasn't working so I just switched to the other table. I'm not gonna fail the article just for this. I guess I can let it pass.
 * - The main issue is that the Senate hasn't had any changes in composition yet. Taking a look at the U.S. Congress I based it on, it seems the issue should sort itself out by 2025, when there's more time for senators to potentially leave office, be appointed ministers, die, etc.
 * - Okay, all good.


 * Leadership
 * - Both sources in this article need a page on the citation.
 * - Done.


 * Composition
 * Senate
 * Chamber of Deputies