Talk:Edith García Buchaca

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edith García Buchaca/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is being reviewed. Nominator: SusunW (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Cielquiparle (talk · contribs) 18:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for picking her up Cielquiparle. I look forward to collaborating with you to improve the article. Please ping me when you are ready for me to respond to your comments. (note 2 "u"s, no a) SusunW (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cielquiparle, are you ready to close this review? -- asilvering (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering I was waiting to get resolution on the image. If it gets deleted, we can re-submit and use it as "Fair Use". Cielquiparle (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Cielquiparle My answer would be that I am not comfortable uploading that image as fair use because I personally can't source it. I have no clue how long it takes a deletion discussion to resolve on commons, but I do know that we cannot upload a fair use image if a free one is on commons. I only found 1 image, which was uploaded as fair use, but it was deleted when the family uploaded another. So it seems to me to be a dilemma. To my knowledge, there aren't any free images of her available on the web. Not unusual given the time frame in which she lived. So, unless her family is willing to give us rights to photos they own, I just don't think there are any. SusunW (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose is clear and surprisingly accessible in light of the topic.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Quite honestly I was initially put off by the string of extremely lengthy paragraphs (personal preference), but after reading it I see the logic in keeping those paragraphs the way they are.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References are presented in a consistent format, with specific page numbers provided for books.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources cited include an extensive list of books published by reputable university presses, with many dating from the 21st-century (although the Aguilar and Halperin books are from 1972 and 1981, respectively). Wasn't sure what to make of PM Press initially, but given the blurbs quoting various reputable sources about the book and about author Gordon-Nesbitt, looks like a pass.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The main section that screams "original research" has to do with the image, per my comments below. Otherwise the article is meticulous about citing sources for every fact, and includes an extensive Notes section that provides additional explanation (where sources do not agree, for example). Update Image has been removed for now per discussion above.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Earwig says copyvio "Unlikely". The 29.6% match rate Rialta may seem high but on closer inspection, it is mainly due to matches on long organizational names and the title of her booklet. Spot checks against Halperin and Gordon-Nesbitt reveal no problems with close paraphrasing.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Covers the main periods of her life in considerable depth. Understandable that less information is available about her early life and her house arrest in later life. However, I would like to see more discussion about her trial testimony in the "Party purge" section, since sources are available on this. I would also like to see a bit more discussion about her 1961 booklet (even if her views evolved over time). Update. These sections have been expanded.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Paragraphs 10 and 16 in particular are heavy on historical backdrop, with García mentioned only briefly, but seems justified as it provides important political context.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes

Result

The article is neutral in tone overall and seems balanced in considering the main controversies of EGB's life, which had to do with her role in the censorship program and her connection to Marquito. (The one phrase that jumped out initially as non-neutral was "what should have been a private matter", but in re-reading that sentence I see it is clearly attributed as the opinion of a writer.) The article also meticulously details the level of involvement García is thought to have had in various initiatives, which is often hard to assess in the history of social movements and party politics.

Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Main image is CC BY-SA 4.0 but provenance of image is unclear. Uploader is new user who claims it is their "Own work". If this is found to be an invalid claim, the image will need to be re-uploaded as Fair Use. Update Image has been removed per above.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	How do we know it is in fact a photo of EGB? Since no actual source is given for the image, this is unclear. Update Image has been removed per above.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

• @SusunW: Nice work. This is close to a pass but there are three issues I would like to see resolved: 1) a bit more discussion about EGB's own trial testimony in the "Party purge" section; 2) a bit more discussion about the arguments she made in La teoría de la superestructura: la literatura y el arte (The Theory of the Superstructure: Literature and Art, 1961; 3) some kind of resolution of the "image" issue (at minimum it seems like we should cite a source verifying that that is in fact a photo of her; I understand this was added by another editor after you had worked on the article). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to work on the first 2 points. I don't really have a clue what to do about the photo. I have to say this has happened to me more than once and always leaves me baffled. I uploaded a fair use image which was clearly labeled by the art gallery that hosted the photograph with a link that could be verified. The photograph I uploaded was deleted when Dcaso95 uploaded this image as "own work". I have no idea how to check if that person actually was the owner of the photograph or took it themselves, nor whether or not they provided any proof of same with a release of some sort (I don't know how to do it, but I've worked with people who have gotten releases sent to somewhere on WP) to whoever it goes to. Every time this has happened in the past and I have protested it on the deletion nomination, it never stops the deletion in favor of that "own work" tag. I find it frustrating that I spent time to ensure that the image I uploaded was properly noted as fair use, but anyone can upload another image, mark it as free and then I am left trying to clean up the problem. Personally, I do not think documented fair use images should be removed without some sort of proof that a replacing image is actually freely licensed, but what do I know? Since my image was deleted, I don't think I can reinstate it either. Ideas? SusunW (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@SusunW I would include a note in the "Summary" or "Caption" associated with the image on Commons that the photograph matches an image you found that was clearly labeled by the art gallery (naming the art gallery, providing a URL, etc.) Just to show that you have verified that it is in fact an image of the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

But it's not the same image. Therein lies the problem. This is the image I found and uploaded. I have no idea who took the image now on the article or when (if) it was ever published. SusunW (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I've posted a query and pinged the uploader here on the common's talk page. Still working on the other two items, but I'll have to finish tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the uploader is a family member, the photos dates to 1939-1940, and the photographer is unknown. See update to the discussion. I've asked GRuban for help, but if you know about that release form and where to send it, could you answer Cielquiparle? SusunW (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How exciting and rewarding to have reached out. Will be interesting if you get a further response. Based on armchair sleuthing, my completely speculative hypothesis would be that the photo was either published in Mediodía or Universidad magazines which were edited by her first husband during that timeframe (1939 or 1940), which explains why he would have the original, and/or that he took the photograph, in which case the descendants really are the heirs. SusunW Cielquiparle (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that George hopped right on my request. He and I have worked on a lot of images together. I am pretty good with the research and licensing if they were published, but that whole releasing the rights thing and the CC by whatever is very confusing to me. Fingers crossed that we get it resolved. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• I've added a bit more about her testimony and also a bit about her theories in the book. Quite frankly, I cannot comprehend what Gordon-Nesbitt is talking about in her discussion of Marxist theory. It seems completely contradictory an unintelligible to me - how can economics be separated from the context of history and what the heck does this "Marx situated the aesthetic terrain among the ideological forms determining consciousness" even mean? (I am reminded of a line from a movie, "Mick, Mick, speak English!) Please feel free to edit it or correct it as you see fit. Analyzing Marx or any philosopher for that matter, is not within my wheelhouse. SusunW (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  @SusunW Check out the 2010 Weppler-Grogan article in Cuban Studies which briefly mentions the 1961 pamphlet in terms of "how artists must be first and foremost politicians trained 'to adopt the view of the masses,' helping workers overcome their petit-bourgeois habits and prejudices, and always ready to 'unmask and denounce the enemy'." (That article in turn cites an academic book chapter. I think you may find more references to the 1961 pamphlet (beyond Gordon-Nesbitt) if you search on "pamphlet" rather than "booklet" which is the wording I would recommend also in the article. Apparently it had 54 pages.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you Cielquiparle. Sources that I can understand are far easier to summarize . I changed booklet to pamphlet throughout and added information from both. SusunW (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.