Talk:Ninfa Huarachi/GA1

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

Reviewer: Asilvering (talk · contribs) 00:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry for the wait. I should get to this in a day or so. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I lied. But I'm here now! Thanks for your patience. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Prose

 * 1) Could you try rewriting As with most legislators who entered as representatives for social movement organizations, Huarachi was not nominated for reelection. Among MAS-aligned sectors, preference was to rotate out parliamentary representatives each successive cycle, even as the core electoral pact with the government remained unchanged. to be a bit clearer for people who aren't familiar with Bolivian politics? I think it would help to frame it as "Because the MAS [had such-and-such a policy], Huarachi was not nominated for re-election", but you're not bound to that. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree it's a bit confusing. I tend to get quite wordy. I tired shortening it while keeping the original structure. Tell me what you think. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) In the interests of making this easier to read on mobile and removing the nested-footnotes problem, would you try to integrate notes alpha and beta with the main text? -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) What problem are you referring to? They seem to working fine on my mobile. Although, the "lower-alpha" and "lower-beta" text does cause the rest of the note to wrap pretty hard. I could change them to regular "a" and "b" footnotes so that the text fits better. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By "nested footnotes problem", I mean when a footnote has a footnote inside of it. Better to avoid that when it's reasonably possible. -- asilvering (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't disallowing explanatory notes from having citations defeat the purpose of the note? In any case, I think integrating the notes into the main body text would make the article less focused, as they mostly provide context without covering much about Huarachi herself. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it defeats the purpose of the note, nor do I think it would make the article less focused (I wouldn't have suggested it if so), but this is subjective, so if you strongly prefer it this way, that's quite fine. Also, sorry about falling behind on this. I expect to get through the rest of this review in the next 24hrs. -- asilvering (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think I'm going to lean on staying as is, if that's ok. I'm actually considering removing some of these footnotes in favor of dedicated articles, so they might be removed eventually anyhow. I appreciate your leniency. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. The criteria is "well written", not "follows all the whims of the GA reviewer", after all. I've finally gotten a chance to do the source check and have only had one question come up, so this is ready to pass. I'll give you a moment to answer the question I had (under "sources") just in case, but since the source on the following sentence covers that as well, I'm not worried. -- asilvering (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Coverage

 * 1) This doesn't have any information about her post-2015 at all, I don't think. Can you find anything at all to fill this gap? Even a "she returned to work doing such-and-such" kind of statement would help. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a problem I run into with many of these articles. The legislators are virtual unknowns before they enter office and return to relative obscurity after their term ends (sometimes, not even their death is reported). In this instance, the only thing I found about her after leaving office was the shoutout she got when the legislation she worked on was enacted. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I gave it a shot and didn't find anything either, alas. -- asilvering (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)