Talk:Carlos Subirana Gianella/GA1

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

Nominator: 12:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: That Tired Tarantula (talk · contribs) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and start responding to these tomorrow. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  00:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey I was hoping to get this GA tackled this afternoon, but there is a coup d'état currently underway in Bolivia. I was set to depart to the country in three days, so I will now be busy making several calls and getting unexpected affairs in order. I may not be able to meet the one-week deadline. Feel free to close the GA if that happens. Sorry for the inconvenience. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fine; I'll push the deadline back a week. I'm sorry that that situation is happening over there and that you've had to go through it. Please let me know if you need more time later. That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  22:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Coup failed (hurray!). I waited a day to see if there would be any developments that would fill up my schedule (state of emergency, flight cancellations, etc.) but it seems things have died down. Just another Wednesday in Bolivia, ha, ha. I should hopefully (finger crossed) be able to tackle this GA by 30 June. I'll try and do it sooner to give time for responses before I depart but just know I might not be super quick on the uptake once I leave the country. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Phew! That's fine, don't worry. :) That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  06:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright! Time to get this show on the road. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

 * No maintenance templates: ✅
 * Relavent images are present: ✅
 * Article is stable; no ongoing edit wars or significant changes recently: ✅

Copyright

 * No copyright violations/plagiarism: ✅
 * Images are free (unless a rationale is given if they are not) and tagged: ✅

Broadness and focus
The article is mostly focused, but there are a few times where it goes off-topic. Three sentences in the first paragraph of the early life and career section talk about Carlos Subirana Gianella's family, but not him, and the last paragraph of the article analyzes the shift in his family's political beliefs instead of just his. The first three sentences of the second paragraph in the Chamber of Deputies section don't mention Subirana and the last sentences of first paragraph of the tenure section comment on the number of younger members of legislature in general. As a result, Subirana's family should just be mentioned in the early life and career section and details about politics should be kept to a minimum; they should only be elaborated on when the reader wouldn't understand what happened in certain points of Subirana's life otherwise. Here are my suggestions:

Of course, the wording doesn't have to be exactly the same as this; please do whatever you think is best as long as the article stays on topic.


 * I'll leave my responses here since I can't really fit them in the table. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The only point I'm only going to have to disagree with is the first one. It's actually pretty common for biographies of people in political families to devote some level of detail about their relatives' political positions. The articles on John F. Kennedy and Benjamin Harrison come to mind. I think the difference is that there's usually more biographical information about the article subject's early life, which makes the family information comparatively smaller. In this case, there just isn't as much.
 * Ok. 👍 That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed; it's too long and goes into too much detail. I've tried to shorten it to only state that his father had joined the party and that he was already on the political left. I left the side note by Romero because I thought it could still give some insight; it's not essential, though, so tell me if I should just remove it.
 * It looks good! That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  21:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed; shortened.
 * Agreed. I didn't shorten it as much as you suggested, as I thought it was important to explain who Germán Antelo (the man picking him) was and why Subirana was suddenly joining a different party.

When it comes to the article's broadness, it seems like the section about Subirana's legal and media career is lacking information, since I found several sources about it and specific events in his career online. I also found information about a controversy involving Subirana at the end of his political career, but I haven't looked into it very much yet. The other sections look good. Overall, it covers most of the information about the subject, but there is also some stuff that would be helpful if it were added.


 * The section on his media and legal career is short, as I couldn't find much information. I'd be happy to add anything new you may have found. Feel free to tell me about the controversy as well. I might have also come across it but not added it; scandals and cases of corruption are quite common in Bolivia, so I'm hesitant to add things unless they result in a conviction. Lest every article be an exhaustive list of controversies and criminal proceedings that go nowhere. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there wasn't a conviction, so nevermind. I found some information about Subirana having represented a flight attendant who was in a plane accident, but I didn't find much about it, so it's not really important. Anyways, this was really just a suggestion and not something that I'm reviewing the article for, since it looks pretty broad in its coverage already. That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  23:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Writing and MoS
The writing is pretty good overall, but there are a couple minor errors; if the GA passes, I'll edit the prose a bit to fix them. I don't see any problems as far as MoS goes.

Neutrality
I am not concerned about due weight in this article; it seems like viewpoints are being adequately presented. But I am concerned about editorialism, since I'm noticing a lot of words to watch. But this is a shorter article, so it can be fixed in a couple quick edits.

Evaluating sources

 * LinkedIn is not considered to be reliable and is published by the subject. The other online sources look good.
 * The MOS states that LinkedIn can be used for "uncontroversial self-description". I only used it for the claim that he practiced law at his family's firm, which I think isn't controversial. Obviously, an independent source is preferable, but I couldn't find one. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  17:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * All the sources in the publication section check out.
 * The first source in the book and encyclopedia section appears to be self-published, so it should not be used. The other sources are good.
 * Do you mean the "Gonzales Salas" citations? Those are not self-published. They're an independent work based on interviews with the lawmakers. Most of my other GAs have cited it without issue. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because I kept noticing how they used the first-person point of view, so I got confused. Anyways, nevermind. That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  18:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Citation accuracy
There are a few pieces of information that I can't see mentioned in the sources:

1. It doesn't say that Ana María Gianella Peredo was  Carlos Subirana Suárez's wife, but the writing corresponds with what the source says for everything else.
 * Fair enough. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

2. Where does it talk about his uncle?
 * Sections of this biography cite his father's entry rather than his. In this case, Wálter is mentioned at the end of Subirana senior's entry, on page 578. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks! That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

3. Self-published; not reliable
 * See my reasons above. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

4. None of the three sources mention when he graduated.
 * The Gonzales Salas sources says he graduated as age 18. I did the math to get 2004 but I could just put "at age 18" if you prefer. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's better. That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  03:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

6. Doesn't say that the firm was his father's or that he was a paralegal
 * An "asistente legal" is a paralegal. It is his father's firm but you're right that that's not explicit. Switched out "father's firm" to "family's firm". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

7. From his LinkedIn profile; unreliable
 * See my reasons above. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

13. Where does it mention neoliberalism?
 * In Bolivia, the terms liberalismo and neoliberalismo are often used interchangeably. The author here uses liberalismo. I linked to the article for Neoliberalism rather than Liberalism, which encompasses a very broad range of ideologies. I'm sure I can find a more specific if you'd prefer. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's fine. That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  18:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

20. It doesn't mention when Rodolfo Avilés was sworn in.
 * Does it need to? The note only states that they were elected in 2009. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

22. Using the self-written source is fine here.

23. The source mentions how other members of his party questioned him about supporting MAS, but doesn't make any statements about him supporting the MAS more in general.
 * I'll look into finding some citations here. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, now there's only a couple more days in the GAR; have you found any more sources so far? If not, it might be best to just reword the sentence so that it says that members of his party asked him about his support. That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry this took so long. I ended up changing the sentence a little, switching out "collaborated" with "amicable". Hopefully that's more justified. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fine. That's good! That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  01:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

24. It might be good to mention the incident that the source talks about as well.
 * For the sake of summary style, I think going into him attending the inauguration of the prosecutor general and explaining the context around why that was controversial would veer off from the article's focus. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

25. Looks good, but the self-published source should be removed
 * See above. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

29. Self-published, but fine since it presents the Subirana's viewpoint on his family's political beliefs

37. It only mentions 2014.
 * I'm not sure which citation this one is referring to. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My bad, I meant the 34th. That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  17:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed some citations so the number may have changed. Anyway, the book was published in 2014 but Pg. 307 states that the commissions are for the 2014–2015 legislative term. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

All of the other citations and the ref layout look good.

Overall
There are some issues, but they're minor and can be fixed pretty easily; the article looks good overall. I'm placing the GA review on hold for two weeks (extending for a week due to the coup in Bolivia). In order for the GA to pass, the article will have to stay on-topic (see the spots I mentioned in the broadness and focus section), have the sources published by the subject removed (except for the exceptions I mentioned), provide sources for/remove any unsourced information, and words to watch will have to be removed, unless they're necessary for explaining things. As far as broadness goes, what I've commented earlier is just a suggestion; the article is broad overall. It won't be a factor in my final decision for the review.

Update: Now it's been two weeks and the article has reached GA standard. Great work! That Tired Tarantula  Burrow  01:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)