Talk:Martha Poma/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 14:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll be taking this review on as part of Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon. It's always a pleasure to review these articles on Bolivian women in politics, nice work as usual Krisgabwoosh! As per my reviewing style, I'll do section-by-section comments followed by a check against GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Early life and education

 * "in the vicinity of Chojñapata and Chiñaja, two settlements [...]" Might just be worth replacing this with "in the Chojñapata Chiñaja Canton, located in [...]", if the exact location is unclear.
 * ✅ Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "intermediate" Shouldn't this be "intermediate school"?
 * I shortened it so as to not repeat the word "school" twice in the same sentence. But I can add it back if you like. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Career and trade unionism

 * "Poma spent eighteen years [...] During this time [...] from 1988 to 2005" That's three times you clarify the same time period in two sentences. Consider a wee rewrite for concision.
 * I never bothered to add them up, so I didn't realize it was all one timeframe. Fixed. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Poma held local civic positions" As this is a different field, consider adding an "also", so: "Poma also held local civic positions".
 * ✅ Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Election

 * What's the Spanish term for "Integrative Social Autonomy"?
 * "Autonomía Social Integradora"; it's just as clunky in Spanish. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "The 2004 municipal elections were the first to allow local political organizations to compete" On first glance, this reads a bit odd. Were local organisations not allowed to run in local elections? Or were only nationally-registered political parties permitted to run? This may need a bit of clarification.
 * It's exactly as you describe. I could replace "local" with "non-national"; otherwise, perhaps there's a better way to concisely describe it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Hence," No need for this, we can already easily infer the cause-effect.
 * ✅ Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "despite headlining ASI's list of substitute councillors" Maybe move the information about her being the head of the list into the paragraph's first sentence? Then that clears up the word to watch "despite".
 * Adjusted the existing sentence to remove the word. Tell me if you still want it rearranged. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! No need for rearranging. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "this time with a more established front: the Movement for Socialism" Might be worth a wee clarification that the MAS were already the governing party in Bolivia by this point.
 * Added "governing". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Despite the loss," This could be cut.
 * Fair enough. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Tenure

 * The term "chola" is invoked here but it isn't defined. As there's not yet an article on the English Wikipedia, and as the linked article doesn't mention them, it might be worth adding an explanatory footnote in order to clarify what this means.
 * "colleague senator" Hrm? What does this mean?
 * "Colleague" in the way some US senators may say "My colleague". I removed it as it's evidently not necessary. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "amerindian" As this is a controversial term, I think this should probably be replaced with "indigenous".
 * Didn't know that. Changed. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "after a near-quarter-century of being stuck in committee" So the bill was in committee since before she ever took office? Might be worth elaborating on this a little, as that's a long time.
 * Switched out "committee" for the more general "development". A second look at the source shows it doesn't technically say explicitly that it was in committee. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "[...] unregistered vehicles, arguing [...]" Might be worth breaking the sentence here, just for easier readability. So you could start the new sentence with "She argued [...]"
 * ✅ Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * What was the outcome of the unregistered drivers' amnesty bill then? It seems like a significant thing to mention, given she broke the party line to oppose it.
 * As in, whether it passed? Or the result of the amnesty? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Either/both. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Do we have any information on Poma after her tenure as senator? It's now been almost a decade since she left office. I know it's usually tricky to find this kind of info, but I thought I'd ask.
 * I found an additional mention of her being considered as a candidate for some other office in 2015. After that, though, sources dry up. With MAS legislators especially, their origins as members of trade and labor organizations means most don't often live public lives before or after they leave office. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye I figured this would be the case, it's no bother. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Commission assignments

 * Do we have any information on what she did during her time on these commissions/committees?
 * I mentioned only what Poma personally spearheaded (artisanry law) or voted against (amnesty bill). Actions of or even votes by legislators are actually not public record as they are in the US, so little gets reported. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Electoral history

 * Damn, she won election to the Senate with 80% of the vote? That seems significant enough to mention in the prose of the "Election" section, I'd say.
 * Senators are not directly elected, so Evo Morales won 80% of the vote and seats in the upper and lower chambers were apportioned accordingly. There's actually a footnote next to the citation explaining this. I add the "electoral history" box on all legislator articles as there are some offices that are directly elected – if she had been nominated for mayor, for example, votes would've been directly for her. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah right, thanks for clarifying. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead

 * "Daughter of artisans," Should maybe say "A daughter of artisans,"
 * Quirk of a Spanish-speaker. Fixed. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "she served as chair" Maybe "she also served as chair".
 * Split into two sentences as they're not really that connected. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "represented here trade's labor unions" Every other instance in this article uses "trade unions", not "labor unions", so this should be standardised.
 * "Trade's trade unions" sounded a bit clunky. I kept "labor" and switched out "unions" for "organizations" but I could restructure the sentence entirely if you want. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's good! Cheers. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "She sought a space" Should probably clarify that this was unsuccessful. Right now it just implies that.
 * ✅ Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I only found a few very minor issues with the prose, noted above.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * A couple cases of the word to watch "despite" that could easily be cut.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Very nicely formatted reference section. Makes it all very clear and painless to verify.
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * Every statement has an inline citation.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No original research found on spotchecks.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * No clear cases of copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * If there's information to be found on her life and career after she left office, that should be included.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * If anything, I think there could be extra clarification and detail in some places.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Very neutral, without clear bias in the text.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Since its creation, the article has only been edited by the nominator and some bots, without substantial changes.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Valid creative commons license, verified by an administrator/reviewer.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Relevant and captioned, including with alt text.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * As expected, this was a very nicely put-together article. I only have some minor issues with prose that need fixing and think, if it exists, that information on her life after her senatorial tenure ought to be added. Ping me when everything's been addressed and I'll have another look over before passing. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay! Thanks for addressing all my comments so thoroughly, I'm more than happy to pass this now. Congrats on another very good article! --Grnrchst (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Tubular! Appreciate your help with another GA review. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)