Talk:Sirimavo Bandaranaike/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to review this: it's an extremely important article, so thanks for bringing it to GAN. Vanamonde (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:
All issues have been addressed; see below

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
All issues addressed.
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:
All issues addressed

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
No issues; see comment below

C. It contains no original research:
Spot-checked references, no issues

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig's tool flags common phrases only; spotchecks find no issues.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
All issues addressed

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
All issues addressed
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
All issues addressed (and were minor to begin with).
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No issues
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Licensing checks out to the best of my knowledge

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Caption issues addressed
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
All comments addressed: passing shortly.

Comments

Early life

About the titles and names of her family members; people unacquainted with Sri Lankan government and naming conventions could get those things confused quite easily. I'd suggest breaking up those sentence a bit more: "Her mother was Rosalind Hilda Mahawalatenne Kumarihamy, and her father, Barnes Ratwatte.[1][18][19] Her maternal grandfather, and later her father, both served as Rate Mahatmaya of Balangoda". Or something along those lines; breaking the title away from the name, and describing explicitly as a title.
Done SusunW (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" the well established Radalas from the Kingdom of Kandy." I wonder if a little more detail could be provided? "Well-established" sounds (if you'll forgive the bluntness) a bit like upper-class snobbery
Um, yes, literally "royal caste" as opposed to the nouveau riche appointees, (invented aristocracy) of the same title, created by the British administration. I changed it to say the "family belonged to the ancient royal Radalas", if that helps. SusunW (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I'm not too happy about "ancient". You could simply drop the adjective, IMO. If you'd rather not: what exactly does the source say about this?
Eek, drive by editor made it sound like he was equal to royalty, and clearly that is not the case. I can't control drive by editors who make changes during the review ;) Source says "…born in the ancestral family home at Balangoda…descended from a wealthy, aristocratic, land-owning family whose members held high offices under ancient Singhalese kings…" The point is to somehow convey that it is an inherited nobility. So how about, "member of the Radala, hereditary nobility, from the Kingdom of Kandy"? SusunW (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped the comma: fine now.
~~I know you've linked "Walauwa", but I think the three-word description from the lead of that article would be useful to add: "Walauwa, or colonial manor house".~~
Done SusunW (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"as the Ratwattes were an old, well-established Radala family from Kandy" This is a bit repetitive with the information above; the same comment also applies.~~
Far be it from me to understand the ins and outs of aristocracy, but I've reworked it to explain what I said above in less pointed terminology. Old money/inherited aristocracy vs. newer money/appointed aristocracy. SusunW (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overall this section is much better. One more point: in the colonial system, it's unclear what the "first family" would be. It might be clearer to say "the family of the President of Sri Lanka" or whoever.
I tried to discover who this might have been, but to no avail. It could be that an actual name is given in one of the biographies that are inaccessible to me. Intuitively, since S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike was seen as unsuitable initially, the suitor probably was not the son of a high-ranking British administrator, but then who? Someone who descended from the last monarch? or another family of the traditional aristocracy? Bottom line is I cannot answer the question. SusunW (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One further nitpick here: "Their horoscopes were found to be compatible". This is too close to Wikipedia endorsing astrology, in my view (unintentionally, to be sure). Can we tweak this to "their astrologers said their horoscopes were compatible" or something?
Done SusunW (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raising a family

"Colonel Edward James Divitotawela." Since Sri Lanka was probably still a colony when this marriage took place, it may be useful to write "Edward James Divitotawela, a Colonel in [army]" because it could have been the British or the British-controlled Sri Lankan army.
Well, I still have no clue whether he was British or Ceylonese, but I added a descriptor from the ref that shows he was involved with the Ceylonese Army. SusunW (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the name I think we can most likely be sure that Edward James Divitotawela is/was a Sinhalese and not British. Sinhalese people living in the coastal areas where the British were most present would often adopt European names during that time.
‎Blackknight12 The problem is we can't guess and to make an assumption would be OR, which is not allowed, certainly not in a GA. If documentation can be found, he could be notable, as the "founder of the Central Command of the Ceylon Army" but that would need to go in an article about him, not in an article about Bandaranaike. Please do not keep adding information during the review. There is not time to proof your additions and research the reviewer's questions simultaneously. The point is, multiple people have reviewed the information to prepare the article, so all data has been confirmed by multiple eyes. Each post she held does not need to be in this article, but rather can be linked on articles about the various cabinets in which she served. The article has to be stable, i.e. additions are completed, for the review to proceed. SusunW (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats true, just letting you know from a Sri Lankan perspective. No Problem, I wont be adding anymore large edits moving foreward.
~~"Their marriage was noted to have helped break down social barriers in Sri Lanka over the years" Any detail available on why this was?~~
Kind of like British royalty marrying commoners would be the easiest explanation. SusunW (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it makes intuitive sense, but if the sources say that it would be good to add. If they don't, that's fine.
Sources that I found don't say specifically. SusunW (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this is because Sirimavo and the Ratwatte family were part of the old Sinhalese nobility, as SusunW has stated above, an old, well-established Radala family from the Kandyan Kingdom (Kandyan Sinhalese or Up-Country Sinhalese), whereas the Bandaranaike family were nouveau riche appointees of the British administration (Low-Country Sinhalese). The Sinhalese population was divided into Kandyan and Low country Sinhalese during this time, culturally and through caste. The Kandyan Sinhalese formed the traditional elite whereas the Low country Sinhalese were under European administration for much longer. See this
Okay, it makes sense now, but without further detail I'm a bit unhappy with the vague "was noted". Can we add specifically who said that, and in that way make them responsible for the vagueness?
Unfortunately the piece was written by a staff writer. I have added ‎Blackknight12's source explaining the caste system (thank you for finding it) and changed the wording to remove "was noted". I also linked to the caste system as clearly it has bearing on the subject and shows that is wasn't just the marriage of nobility to commoner, but their actual policies transformed the social structure. I just briefly introduced the topic here, as later down, I had already explained how her changes reconfigured power. Does that work? SusunW (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a minute (sorry, I know this is dragging on a bit); if the "breaking down barriers" was because of their policies in government, this should be in "political career", or better still, in "legacy"...
Can we leave this one hanging until you finish? As I said, it is an introduction here for their "couplehood", since she initially mirrored his policies and if the article simply addresses her implementation, he gets no credit. What she actually implemented, and what he devised, were not the same, but they stemmed from his ideas. I think, when you finish the article review, you will have a better sense of the development of the topic of transformation. I added a bit to the legacy section.SusunW (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I moved it. SusunW (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Similarly, who dubbed it the wedding of the century?~~
Widely reported that way in the press. Added "by the press". SusunW (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Mental Asylum" is an anachronism; can we translate this, or provide a link, or something?~~
Done SusunW (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Many of the organizations she served in should be linkable; depending on the depth of the source material, redlinks may be appropriate for others.~~
No articles on any of them that I could find to link to. I added red links for several. The cancer society I did not link, pretty self-explanatory. I also did not link the nurse's organization as I find no sources with that particular name and there were multiple organizations, colonial, overseas, All-Ceylon, etc. and I have no idea if this was a separate organization or one that merged into one of the others. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~One more point here: Lanka Mahila Samiti needs a translation, I think. You can choose whether or not you want the non-English name also.~~
Can't help you there. No clue and all the sources I found call it that. Google translate gives nada. Maybe as Blackknight12 is actually from Sri Lanka, they can help? SusunW (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I have done a bunch of research, there are Mahila Samiti organizations in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, in other words throughout the region. I found it in Bengali script মহিলা সমিতি, which translates as female Association. This is not scholarly, but says the word origin of Mahila is Sanskrit and means woman. So, I think it is safe to translate into the Lankan Women's Association. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine to me. Vanamonde (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"was elected to – the House of Representatives for the Attanagalla Electoral District". I think you mean from the Attanagalla Electoral district; didn't want to correct it myself in case that was not true.
Done (by the by, source does state "from"). SusunW (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"As Ceylon moved toward self-governing status in 1947" I think we should be able to find a link to help readers unfamiliar with this process, but I'm not finding anything at the moment...any ideas?~~
linked to Sri Lankan independence movement SusunW (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~There's some inconsistency between "Attanagalla" and "Attanagalle"~~
Only found one instance, clearly a typo and fixed. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you introduce an acronym for SLFP (which is okay, because it's how the party's known) you should stick to that abbreviation, and not use "Freedom Party"; I've changed one instance, but there may be others.
In the previous GA you reviewed for me, you stated that acronyms should not be used. I concurred, especially in this instance, as the article is lengthy, there are so many parties involved and unless one is knowledgeable about Sri Lankan politics keeping the parties straight is confusing. When I started the re-write, all the parties were acronyms and I had a heck of a time trying to figure out who the players were, what groups made up the coalitions, etc. Your case against their use was reinforced by trying to sort the parties out in this article. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair. I did say that; I thought you may want to use the acronym here because of how often it would appear in the article, but I'm happier if it isn't used. Really the point is that two different abbreviations (Freedom Party and SFLP) should not both be used.
I wanted to reference SLFP as it is often seen that way, but I consistently used Freedom Party throughout. I have changed the one instance you altered back to Freedom Party. SusunW (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this section could benefit from a slight reorganization: after "Sirima Bandaranaike devoted most of her time to raising her family and playing hostess to her husband's many political acquaintances," place the two sentences about her children's education. Also, move the two sentences beginning "She often accompanied him..." to the beginning of paragraph 3. This makes it a more logical flow, IMO, but feel free to suggest something else (or disagree).
Done SusunW (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political career

"unanimously elected President of the Freedom Party" Who were the electors here? Do we know? Different countries and parties have very different procedures...in some cases it's all MPs, in some all members...if there's no info, that's fine.
by the executive committee of the party. Added. SusunW (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why is ref 46 placed after "campaigning"?~~
?? Because the source says she was campaigning in June, even though she hadn't yet decided whether she was running. That seemed interesting to me, or at least different, as in the US and Mexico, non-candidates do not campaign. SusunW (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Well, it's not contentious, so I moved the ref to the end of the sentence.
The question of Tamils in Sri Lanka is a contentious one, and so in covering related material I think we need to devote a sentence or two more of background than we might otherwise. In this case, we need to make it clear that while the British brought over a number of Tamils as estate workers, there were a large number of native Tamils, too. Also, the phrase "and to demonstrate tolerance for the estate Tamils" is rather ambiguous in this context. What does the source say?
I added a preface to cover native Tamils and clarified that the estate Tamils were the ones that were considered temporary. I added a sentence to clarify his position to allow them to use their own language and practice their faith. SusunW (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.
"Opponents derisively dismissed her with sexist comments about her "kitchen cabinet"." I get what you're saying, but the triple negative is overkill; I'd even say it undermines the basic point. I'd go with something like "leading opponents to make derisive statements about her "kitchen cabinet", unless the source explicitly says "sexist", in which case I'd substitute that for "derisive".
Source says "derisively called her 'kitchen cabinet.' Valiantly battling sexism, sexualization, and political machinations, this 'weeping widow' was described a decade later as 'the only man in her cabinet.'" I thought I'd toned down the language a lot from the source :) but in light of your observation, I've changed it to "Opponents dismissed her with sexist comments" SusunW (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded a little, see if you're happy with it.
It's fine. SusunW (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Following a Socialist platform, her policies aimed to eliminate barriers to equal access by making the government more representative of – and responsive to – those it governed." If this sentence belongs in the article at all, it should be in the legacy section. As a descriptor of policy, it's really meaningless, I'm afraid.
I sort of moved it, shortened it and combined it with the bit above about their transformation of society. It was the classlessness of socialism that they brought to the country that transformed the caste system, so it seemed to me that putting socialist policies in that part of the article made sense. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above; I think stuff about larger impact should be placed in legacy.
Done SusunW (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~There's some inconsistency between "Singhalese" and "Sinhalese".~~
Only found one instance, and corrected it. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think we should mention the constituency she was elected to~~
Which section are you working? Basically she served the Attanagalla Electoral District until it was dissolved and replaced by the Gampaha Electoral District effective in 1982. Since her civil rights were suspended at that time, I guess, technically for her it was effective with the 1988 election. SusunW (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have said: "Leader of the opposition (1965–1970)". I don't think it's made explicit that when she left the senate that she was elected to the Attanagalla constituency, though I may have missed this.
Done SusunW (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Lanka Sama Samaja Party" and any other parties should be linked at first use.~~
Done SusunW (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"She introduced innovations requiring... " "innovations" is odd here. Surely "policy" would be more usual?~~
Done SusunW (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think it's worth mentioning that the Dominion to Republic switch meant Sri Lanka was no longer under the Queen of England.~~
Okay, had to find a ref. ;) Done SusunW (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's something that I've found is surprisingly not common knowledge.
~~"a petition challenging her position as a member of parliament was dismissed." I think we need to mention who dismissed this, or drop this sentence, if that information isn't available.~~
added "by the Colombo High Court". Done SusunW (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"From 1980, conflict became more frequent and increasingly violent." I think you mean conflict with the separatists, but that isn't completely clear, and could be made explicit.~~
Done SusunW (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Arumugam Thiagarajah, the United National Party candidate" candidate for what? President? Parliament?
Ross & Savada on page 55 say "Shortly before the elections the leading candidate of the UNP was assassinated as he left a political rally." This source says he was killed in Moolai, which is in the Jaffna Electoral District. This says "S Thiyagarajah, former principal of Karainagar Hindu College and former MP for Vaddukoddai, who headed the UNP list of candidates". They got his name wrong, but the principal and former MP stuff matches with the previous source. None indicates to me whether that run was for Parliament or what. However, the new constitution creating a presidency had been adopted in 1978 and J. R. Jayawardene was elected president for a six year term. Logic tells me then it wasn't for president. This tells me that the 1st session of Parliament ended 26 March 1982, thus it also logically follows that he was campaigning as an MP. Do I have a document that says that, no, thus, I think it would be OR (or Synth) to state that, unless it is so obvious that it could be called common knowledge. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps simply describe him as a prominent UNP politician, and leave the candidature out; that way the basic point is conveyed in a concise manner.
Done SusunW (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"separatists, now known as the Tamil Tigers..." I don't think it's as simple as that. AFAIK the LTTE were by far the largest and best known of the separatists, but I do not believe the entire movement morphed into the LTTE. So unless the source explicitly says so, I think you need to rephrase.
I get that its complicated (and the use of acronyms makes it moreso, what pray tell is AFAIK?). I've reworked the section. Advise. SusunW (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks (AFAIK is As Far As I Know :) )
LCOMC (Literally choked on my coffee) as I laughed out loud. SusunW (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"In 1990, when the 13-month ceasefire was broken by insurgents..." It would be helpful to mention both which insurgents these were, and which ceasefire this was (the same one involving the IPKF?)~~
Clarified other militias gave up weapons but not the Tamil Tigers. The source doesn't say specifically. It says the Indian Peace Keeping Force spent 2 years trying to get them to lay down their arms. The agreement with the Indians initiated in 1987, thus by 1989 they were out of the picture. But, the peace was broken in June 1990. Math to get back to 13 months, implies that it was negotiated by them, but the source doesn't say that, which leans into OR in my mind. SusunW (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"When emergency powers were granted, she demanded that they be lifted." What emergency powers? Granted by whom?~~
Sri Lankan Civil Law p 3 gives the president that authority, but source says only "by the Government". However, I believe it is standard that a state of emergency declaration belongs to the executive, sometimes later requiring legislative approval. See revision.
Perhaps we can say "assumed" emergency powers, as that's what your link suggests?
Done SusunW (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"to challenge in the Western Province of Sri Lanka in May." This seems colloquial: I would suggest "to contest the 1993 provincial election in the Western Province".~~
Done SusunW (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Wijetunga was nominated to complete the president's unexpired term". This is a bit confusing; if he was nominated, why was there an election at all? Or are you saying the constitution required a fresh election after an assassination, in which Wijetunga was the UNP candidate?
If I read the Sri Lankan Constitution correctly, if a president dies in office the PM steps in temporarily until an election can be held. pp 21-23 The Parliament then decides "the procedure for the election of the President". According to the source the Parliament, not the electorate, were to be the voters in this specific instance. Added text, advise.
Okay, that makes sense. I've shuffled the sentences, it's fine now, I think.
Related: "Due to her failing health, Bandaranaike continued as opposition leader," sounds contradictory. Depending on your answer above, it may be clearer as "...failing health, Bandaranaike chose not to contest the 1993 election.."
See modifications. SusunW (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Many of the images are captioned rather oddly; I wonder if you could go over all of them...we don't need her first name in most places, for instance, and the first caption should say "furthest right in back row" (or whatever) rather than "3", which is confusing.
Done SusunW (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy

Okay, so I fully recognize this is a tricky section, because we want to recognize Bandaranaike's impact, which was huge. That said, I'm a bit concerned that at the moment, this relies a little too much on cliche. I think this can be sorted out by trimming some of the other information, and then fleshing out her legacy with information from obituaries, and from scholarly sources if they are available. I'd suggest one short paragraph (possibly with some quotes) about her election as the first female prime minister, and another about her policy; that's just a suggestion, though. The LA Times obituary has some decent material.
I've done a bit of rewrite on it, but am going to ping Alanna the Brave as she took on this section of the article in the rewrite. SusunW (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~And I really do feel the "socialist policies they enacted" from the family section needs to be moved here.~~
Done SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, though; I think there's some redundancy and not directly irrelevant information, too. Chandrika and Anura's roles in government have been covered in detail above; I think those could be abbreviated to something like "All three of her children held nationally prominent positions; in addition to Anura and Chandrika's roles in government, her daughter Sunetra..etc".
Done SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Similarly, the information in the last paragraph is really not terribly relevant, because it's commentary on gender disparity in Sri Lanka, and not so much on Bandaranaike's own influence.~~
I'm also going to disagree to some extent with you on this paragraph. Judging her legacy from a political perspective, without feminist critique, leaves the question of whether her tenure made any lasting difference for women unanswered. If it did not make lasting impact, it sort of shatters the Great man theory, as being applicable to women. I'll leave it up to Alanna. SusunW (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree that feminist critique is necessary. But we're limited by the source material here. What's currently in the paragraph is critique by other members of the government of government policy and/or party policy; and it's Wikipedia that's linking this to Bandaranaike, which is a little dodgy. If we had an independent source examining women's rights in Sri Lanka fifty years after Bandaranaike (or whatever) that would be something worthy of inclusion, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde93 -- thanks for all your work here. I've been watching the GA review unfold with interest. Here are my thoughts on the legacy section: I have to agree with SusunW that we need SOME discussion of Bandaranaike's impact on gender equality in Sri Lanka. She's known for being the world's first female elected head of government, but it's hard to know what this means (should we care?) unless you examine the question of whether her political career actually changed anything for women, particularly in Sri Lanka. This being said, I agree that the current paragraph is somewhat limited by the source material (I couldn't find much on this aspect of her legacy, which personally surprised me). I think we should keep the paragraph, but we could at least trim it by eliminating the 2016 bill & 2018 election info (which had the least direct connection to Bandaranaike). Additionally, if you're open to waiting 3-4 days, I'll make one more attempt to locate independent sources that directly discuss Bandaranaike's impact (or lack of) on gender equality in Sri Lanka. I'm busy with real-world work today, but I'll have more time to tackle this on Wednesday and Thursday, and there are still some books/articles I haven't checked yet. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanna the Brave: I, too, agree we should be discussing Bandaranaike's impact on gender equality; I just don't think the current paragraph is doing that. What's there right now is mostly about parliament's failings after her death. I'm happy to give you as much time as you need; there's also a lot of other stuff to deal with in this section, too (see my comments above). Vanamonde (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're okay with waiting, then, I'll revisit this section in a few days and see what improvements I can make. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me be a little more specific here. In the current revision, the first paragraph is just fine. I'm not too happy with the first sentence of the second; I think this is too general, and could be fleshed out. Rest of that paragraph is fine. Third paragraph: I'm not too happy with "Bandaranaike led the country to break free of its colonial past," which again seems to say a lot but actually is rather vague. I'm similarly unhappy with the phrases "Bandaranaike navigated the divided world stage and successfully brought Sri Lanka to prominence" and "As an agent of peace, she strove to forge lasting alliances". All of those contain words I would describe as puffery (nothing personal, you know that). The first half of the last paragraph is fine; The bit beginning "By 2017, only 5.7 per...", however, strikes me as SYNTH, and I'd recommend just appending "such a bill was passed in 2016" to the previous. If you wish to add more material explicitly analyzing Bandaranaike's impact on gender in Sri Lanka (or even examining gender in Sri Lanka while making a real link to Bandaranaike's role) that would be fine: I don't think the current material does that.
There is a reason I never write something as significant as Bandaranaike without lots of input from editors like Ian and Alanna who are able to go behind me and work out how to say what I mean :) I am good at the research and fairly competent in crafting the body. Not so good at the lede and summary and awful with photos. I take full responsibility for the puffy statements, and have no problem with you calling me out for them. Hopefully Alanna can fix it, as she has a lot of skill editing my ramblings :) SusunW (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've found at least two sources that look promising. I'll start editing the death/legacy section tomorrow. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay -- I've trimmed, expanded, and attempted to edit some of the wording in the legacy section as per overall discussion above. Vanamonde93 and SusunW, what do you think? Is it looking better now? Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanna the Brave: Thanks: that looks much better. I've taken a swipe at the prose, please let me know if there's a change you don't like. I'll work on wrapping this up, meanwhile. Vanamonde (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! I've got no objections to your edits. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been at the doctors all day. Thank you both for working on it. Looks good! SusunW (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The sources used here are generally of high quality, and at the GA level I'm not going to flag any of them. If you wish to take this to FAC, which would be a non-trivial but worthwhile undertaking, there are a few that would probably need replacing; the "dangerouswomenproject" blog source (not a problem here because it's used only for the author's opinions, and those authors are weighty enough that their opinion is worthwhile) and the "socialist India" source, which is a partisan source (literally; it's an organ of the Indian National Congress, historically the largest Indian political party). Other sources that you could consider replacing are the small-town newspapers that are not unreliable as such, but are likely parroting some better known source. Vanamonde (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never taken an article to FAC. I'm sure if someone decides to take it to FAC, they will order in the books which are inaccessible to me in Mexico, thus possibly having the ability to replace some of the sourcing like Socialist India. I used it because I think it brings sharper focus and balance to an internationally known figure to have views from inside and outside the country, from partisan press and non-partisan press. One simply must verify with multiple other sources to confirm neutrality is maintained. All the historic clippings may have appeared in local journals but I noted the various agencies, AP, UPI, Reuters, etc. Thus, it is clear what their source was, which doesn't remotely make them non-reliable or in need of replacement by newspapers with larger circulation. SusunW (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did some spot-checks: most sources check out. One issue I found; the LA Times source does mention that she narrowly lost the 1988 election, but it doesn't say to whom, and the article does; I'm sure of the many other sources cover this, so it should be easy to duplicate one of them.
Done SusunW (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

~~So the lead says "first definitive non-hereditary female head of state or government". The body says nothing of the kind. Do we need all the qualifiers? Do we have a source for all the qualifiers?~~
Done I told you the lede and legacy were hardest for me ;) I didn't write that. I found a source and added it to the body. Took out first definitive, see no reason for the superlatives. SusunW (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"she exacerbated discontent among the estate Tamils, who had become stateless under the Citizenship Act of 1948" this is true, but the language issue affected all the Tamils, not just the estate ones; I think some reworking of this and the next sentence would be helpful.
Added "native" with a link to the first and "because of her nationalist policies aimed at elevating Sinhalese culture" to the end of the second. Does that work? SusunW (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~"was stripped of her civil rights in 1980" I think we should say why, regardless of how justified the charges were; in isolation, this sounds very odd.~~
Done SusunW (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General

Vanamonde93, I think I have addressed the points to here. I really do appreciate your thoroughness. SusunW (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, and thanks for the replies. What little time I had today was sucked up by the black hole that is the ref desk troll (if you don't know whereof I speak, be thankful). I'll return to this in 12 hours or so. Vanamonde (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I'm working on another bio. I stay far to busy to deal with trolls and black holes, and am glad I have no idea what that is. :) SusunW (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicks aside, I think you've done a great job here, SusunW; this is an enormous topic, so the length of my commentary is not really a reflection on your work. I hope to wrap this up soonish. Vanamonde (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vanamonde93. Couldn't have done it without the help of a great team. I always say I learn as much as I impart. Knowing nothing of Sri Lankan politics beyond the fact that it was a former colony, both helped and hindered the re-write, as I had no perspective. Your commentary as ever, has significantly improved the presentation. I think I have answered everything, but please ping me if there is anything further. Hopefully Alanna can address your remaining concerns on the legacy section. SusunW (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW and Alanna the Brave: I think that's the last of my comments: I'll pass this as soon as they've been sorted. Vanamonde (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 Again let me express my appreciation for all of the effort you have put into this review. If there is anything I have missed, please advise. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that's everything. Thanks again for a great article, and it's been my pleasure to review it. If you're wondering why I've going around switching the indenting, it's for accessibility reasons. I have been told that if bullets are being used, followup comments should be indented "*:::" rather than ":::*", and that bulleted and unbulleted indenting shouldn't be mixed. This has nothing to do with the article, only with making the review readable to anyone who might come by. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]