Talk:Nelly Núñez/GA1

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Krisgabwoosh (talk · contribs) 01:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take this review on, as this nomination is listed in Women in Green's autumn backlog. Apologies that it took so long for a review to materialise. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again! Thank you for reviewing another one of my articles. I'll get to these as soon as possible. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Background and early life

Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
Spotcheck: [2] Verified. I'll note that the cited source doesn't actually mention Núñez, but as it is providing necessary context about Pulacayo, that isn't so much of an issue. If this context exists in other sources that are about Núñez, I'd recommend replacing it. This is a very minor issue though.
Spotcheck: [1] Verified. The details about her being the penultimate of 5 children and her parents' occupations appear to be in Gonzales Salas 2013, p. 249; where the information about her parents' names is in Vargas & Villavicencio 2014, p. 111.
Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
Spotcheck: [4] Verified.

Nursing career

Spotcheck: [5] Verified. Both sources verify that she worked as a nurse in a hospital, Gonzales Salas 2013, p. 249 verifies that she left the job after getting married.
Might be worth mentioning that her husband was a doctor when he's introduced, as it provides context for both their meeting and the later detail about his work.

Added the tidbit that he was a gynecologist (P.S. I spent an embarrassing amount of time trying to spell that right) Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"where husband remained" should be "where her husband remained".

Fixed. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
Spotcheck: [6] Verified. Again, this cited source doesn't mention Núñez, but it is providing necessary context about an organisation. If it can be replaced with a source about Núñez that provides this context, that'd be ideal, but no worries if not.
The section title being "Nursing career" reads rather odd, as she's only a nurse for half a sentence in this whole section. I'd recommend removing the subsection separation and just having this be one larger "Early life and career" section, as it's not so long that it really needs to be in separate subsections.

What if I changed it to "Family and career". Admittedly, keeping the section headers is a purely aesthetic choice on my end. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I still think it'd be better as a single section, but it's just a personal preference thing, doesn't affect the review. Feel free to keep it as you like. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election

Spotcheck: [7] Partially verified. Gonzales Salas 2013, p. 249 and Romero Ballivián 2018, p. 415 verify Núñez's involvement in CONDEPA, but Página Siete 2022 doesn't even mention her. Additionally, only Página Siete describes CONDEPA as "populist". I'd recommend just cutting the citation to Página Siete and removing the characterisation of the party as "populist".
"at a time of flux" This is a very vague description. Be more specific about what happened.

Replaced with "during a period of factional infighting". It's more specific and also gives a clearer use to the Página Siete citation you mention above. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [8] I see that she was a candidate in these elections and placed third on the CONDEPA list, but I don't understand how I'm supposed to interpret this as "ranked too low on the CONDEPA party list to secure a seat". It doesn't appear as though this even shows who won election and who didn't?

You're correct. This portion is a bit tricky, because the actual sources about her missed the fact that she was a candidate earlier – it's something I came across on my own. I could add a citation to the election results, which show that only the top-ranked candidate on CONDEPA's list won a seat? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
Spotcheck: [10] Verified her being at the top spot, but not the relation between this and her being departmental head.
It's unclear how citations [9] and [10] are related to each other, so it reads a bit as synth. Consider splitting these up into individual sentences, or rewriting so you're not implying a direct connection where the sources do not. (For the record, I think this interpretation is understandable, but we need to stick to what the sources clearly state without our own novel interpretations)

I reorganized and split the sentence. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [11] Verified. Again, it doesn't reference Núñez, but it does provide informative context. If this context is included in other sources that do mention Núñez, consider replacing it with one of those.
Spotcheck: [12] It appears as though it was the MNR that placed second in 1997, where CONDEPA actually placed third. Also "eleventh-last" is a bit unclear, it might read that it came eleventh from the bottom, where it appears to be saying that it came in eleventh place which was also last place. I think it'd be more informative to provide percentage points (17.16% in 1997, versus 0.37% in 2002), which provides a better picture of their downfall than the vaguer description of position (although it might still be worth mentioning that they came in last place in 2002).

Switched out "eleventh-last" for a more concise "dead last". As for the results, it seems the article I cited is mentioning the nationwide results for 1997, where ADN won first and the MNR second – in Oruro specifically, it was ADN first and CONDEPA second. I've kept the article but added a second source with the election results. I omitted the exact percentage results because they're redundant given the "electoral history" section. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
"proverbial implosion" What's proverbial about it?

I guess just "implosion" is fair enough on its own. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
I think describing CONDEPA as the "predecessor" of the MAS is a bit misleading. It implies a direct lineage between the former and the latter, but MAS had existed for years prior to all this occurring.

You're right, that's not the intended meaning. Perhaps "precursor" would be a better fit? They're technically synonyms, but I think "predecessor" more heavily implies a direct continuation, whereas "precursor" is a bit more general. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think precursor still implies a continuation. You could just say "defunct party". --Grnrchst (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [15] Partially verified. Different parts of the text are verified by one of the two cited sources. I'm not seeing anything in the sources about how "She won the constituency with ease", or about her moving "from opposition to government control" (how was she in the opposition when she failed to get elected?) Consider rewriting this final sentence. Keep it simple.

Romero cites "Venció con holgura" ("She won with ease"). For the second part, Vargas & Villavicencio states that this was the first time the MAS won the constituency. The intended meaning was that the MAS flipped a seat that the opposition had won last cycle. I rewrote that portion to say "flipping the seat in favor of the ruling party", which is clearer – I hope – and closer to the source. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that, thanks for pointing it out. This change looks a lot better, cheers. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenure

Spotcheck: [16] Verified. Thanks for providing the timestamp.
Spotcheck: [17] Verified.
"Most of the country's inmates lack a criminal conviction" Is this still the case? If this situation has changed, then it should say "lacked".

This source from last year states that six in ten inmates lack a conviction. I could add it to the article to back up "lack" vs "lacked". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a good piece of context, aye. Consider maybe adding it in as an explanatory footnote. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [18] Verified.
Spotcheck: [19] Verified.
Spotcheck: [20] Verified. The cited source is another where Nuñéz isn't mentioned, but again one that provides necessary context.
Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
This is sentence should be broken up, as it's too long and pulling from multiple different sources.

Which sentence? (I write a lot of long sentences, ha, ha) Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I should have specified. It's the one that starts with "She served, first, as deputy leader of the MAS caucus in Oruro" --Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now split it into two. Tell me if it still needs tweaking. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith on La Patria sources, as they're paywalled and I can't access them.

For the older sources hosted by Angelfire, the Internet Archive shows that La Patria did have its website there. For the newer ones, the source is only registration-only but if you don't want to enter your email, you can press Ctrl+U and read the full text in the page's source code. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [14] Verified.

Commission assignments

Spotcheck: [24] Verified, although sources appear to say she was in this office from 2012 to 2013, not 2014?

Source cites "en la Gestión 2012 y 2013", which is a bit unclear because of the poor grammar (should be "en las gestiones"). However, in most cases, "gestión 2012" would refer to the term beginning in 2012 (and ending in 2013), and "gestión 2013" would be the term beginning in 2013 (and ending in 2014). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I figured that might have been the case, wasn't sure though. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider rearranging this list into chronological order.

It's based on official commission hierarchy, but I think I'll just start making them chronological in future articles, as this has come up in other reviews. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I do think it looks better in chronological order. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [25] Verified.
Spotcheck: [26] Verified.
Spotcheck: [27] Verified.

Personal life and death

Spotcheck: [28] The cited sources verify different parts. Gonzales Salas 2013, p. 249 verifies her marriage at age 22, La Patria 2021 verifies her children's names and occupations.
Spotcheck: [29] Verified.
Spotcheck: [30] Verified.
Honestly, this part about her corruption scandal should probably go in the section about her tenure. It provides crucial context about the end of her term in office. It's also not really about her personal life, it's very much about her political career.
"The case never advanced to trial." Source?

I couldn't find a single source about the case after 2014. Honestly, I'm wasn't even 100% sure about including the scandal, as I could fill every Bolivian politician's page with a list of corruption scandals that ultimately went nowhere. Without a conviction or even a trial, do you reckon I should just remove it? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included, but maybe reduced a bit. Removing it could be a knock against the article's neutrality, but if it didn't go anywhere, it should only be given the weight it's due. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: [31] Verified.
Even if it's from an official source, I'm not sure I feel comfortable with Tweets being cited in a good article. This information is already verified by La Patria, so I'm not sure the tweet is necessary to cite.

I only included it because the La Patria source, having appeared in the print edition, was published the day after she actually died (11 May), while the Chamber of Deputies announced the death on the day of (10 May). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history

No notes.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
~~There's a couple grammatical errors here and there, noted above. Easily fixed.~~

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Appears compliant with the manual of style, across the board.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
All references properly presented and laid out.

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):
A couple cases where the sources could be brought further inline, but every section is fully cited.

C. It contains no original research:
~~There's a case where I think synth or novel interpretation has occurred and another where no source was provided for a claim.~~

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No clear cases of copyright violations or plagiarism of sources. Manually checked against Spanish language sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Covers the subject's entire life and main accomplishments, without any major gaps.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
I think bits of context in the election section could be tightened up a bit, but there's no context provided that isn't necessary for her biography.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Clearly neutral, with no bias shown towards or against the subject.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Only real changes that have happened were on the Wikicommons side.
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:
Image properly tagged with its CreativeCommons license.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Only image is of the article's subject.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Another very nice article on a Bolivian representative by Krisgabwoosh. It's close to passing, but there's a number of issues that I've found that I think need to be fixed before I can pass this review. Ping me when these comments have been addressed, and I'll be happy to take another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for seeing to everything, I'm more than happy to pass this now. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.