Talk:Víctor Hugo Zamora/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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 16:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All images have appropriate tags. Earwig finds no issues. Except for one query below, sources are reliable as far as I can tell -- I was a bit concerned about aristeguinoticias.com as it is described on es-wiki as an explicitly political site, but the director is a professional journalist and the subject is not Mexican politics so I think it's OK.

~~What makes lavozdetarija.com a reliable source?~~
While only a digital publication, it is run by reputable journalists. Its founder, Julio Vaca Guzmán, also founded El País and elPeriódico, two of the department's primary print publications. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"As president of United to Renew, a regional civic group, he previously served as senator for Tarija from 2015 to 2019": why are these two things connected in this sentence? I.e., his service as senator wasn't "as" president of that group.
Rephrased to "As a member of United to Renew, of which he was president". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Before that, he served as a uninominal member of the Chamber of Deputies from Tarija, representing circumscription 45 from 2010 to 2014 on behalf of the National Convergence alliance." Both "uninominal" and "circumscription 45" need explaining inline or linking or both. The latter is in the body as well as the lead.
Linked uninominal to Single-member district (the distinction is necessary to distinguish from plurinominal member, those elected by electoral list). Circumscription simply means electoral district, which is covered by the former. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "circumscription" is going to baffle a lot of readers, who won't know that the link from "uninominal" also explains "circumscription". Can we translate it as "constituency" instead? E.g. just say "constituency in Tarija" in the lead, and where the word first comes up in the body, add a parenthetical note or footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather use the most accurate term to the Spanish circunscripción, not least because changing it here would require changing it at about a dozen other articles and because something like "district" or "constituency" implies that a department like Tarija has 45 districts, whereas in reality, the entire country is divided into 130 districts. If a reader is completely unable to surmise what a circumscription is from this article, a quick search will lead them to Circumscription, which explains that it may refer to an electoral district. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think you're right that using the English word most similar to the original Spanish is the right approach. One last possibility: how about simply linking it to electoral district? The lead sentence of that article lists "circumscription" as one of the many words that means "electoral district", which is all I think needs to be conveyed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire lead is in reverse chronological order, which reads very oddly. I can see the first sentence giving the most recent information as that's the main reason a reader might want to read the article, but I would suggest switching to chronological order after that, perhaps after a paragraph break.
~~"an industrial engineer of Cinteño origin": suggest naming the region rather than making the reader follow two Wiktionary links.~~
Cinteño can refer to someone from both Nor and Sud Cinti. As the source does not specify which, I believe the wiktionary link is best suited to provide some form as context as to what "Cinteño" means. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~"The position catapulted Zamora to the national level, becoming president of the Bolivian University Confederation": needs rephrasing; as written it says the position became president.~~
Rephrased to "and he became". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~"representing Bolivia before the Latin American Continental Organization of Students (OCLAE)": is "before" the right word? I would have expected "in", or perhaps "at" if it refers to a meeting.~~
In addition to "prior to", "before" can also mean "in front of". In this sense, "before" can be used in place of "in" or "at" and works better for moral formal settings. "So-and-so represented so-and-so before the International Court of Justice", for example. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's a nuance in that usage of "before" that I don't think applies here. If you say "X was the delegate before the conference" it singles X out; it would be incorrect to see that each delegate was "before the conference". A delegate before a conference might be speaking, or under consideration for an appointment, or something else, but it means "in the presence of" or "under the consideration of" rather than "at" or "attending". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Replaced with "at". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we explain "plurinominal" inline or in a footnote, or link to within the encyclopedia, rather than going to Wiktionary?
"when Zamora failed to win a seat.... Notwithstanding, in 2000, Zamora was invited to work within the Tarija Prefecture": I'm missing a nuance here. Was his position a political appointment? We don't say so, and from the description it's not clear it is, but if it isn't there's no reason for "Notwithstanding". If it is a political appointment, we should say so, and I think "Notwithstanding" needs a couple more words -- perhaps "Notwithstanding his election loss, ...", or "Despite his election loss...".
Rephrased to: "Despite the loss, Zamora's political career continued". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~"For the duration of his political career": needs rephrasing, since his political career continued after he succeeded Montes as UNIR president.~~
As stated in the footnote, Montes continued as party leader even after he handed administrative control to Zamora. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that, but doesn't that contradict the later statement "Zamora rejected the congress as illegal as it contravened the regulations outlined by Tarija's Departmental Electoral Tribunal. For this reason, the minister stressed that he remained the party's head"? Doesn't that mean Zamora at least considered himself the head of UNIR while he was its president? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing is for Zamora to be president of UNIR while accepting Molina's status as party leader. But Molina's move to not just oust Zamora as president but also remove him entirely from the party's leadership structure went further than a simple demotion, and Zamora recognized it as an effective break in relations between the two. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; I see your point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"After nearly a decade in La Paz, Zamora conveyed his decision to retire from national politics at the end of his term, preferring to return to Tarija to be closer to his family": can we get a more precise date than "after nearly a decade"? The next sentence, starting "Even so...", is a bit journalistic, and should be trimmed, but I can't tell at this point without reading further whether he actually did retire, or just declared an intention to.
Combined both sentences to be hopefully clearer. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"seeking to align the party with either": suggest "seeking to align UNIR with either" if that's the intent, as I think it must be.
UNIR is already mentioned earlier in the same sentence? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree it's hard to read this any other way, but that's only true when you reach the end of the sentence. It's difficult to keep track of the players and I think a little extra signposting helps the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does this still apply now that the sentence has been revised per the following comment? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In May, the party settled on the latter, meaning that UNIR, the MNR, and the PDC would all contest Tarija separately": why does aligning with Ortiz mean contesting Tarija separately? This whole paragraph is a bit opaque -- the negotiations, exactly what agreement was reached with Ortiz, why we mention the UNIR's negotiations with the MNR and the MDS but then mention the PDC. I can see this might make a bit more sense if Ortiz is aligned with the MDS, but we don't say that. I'm sure this is all clear to someone who knows the relationships between the various Bolivian political parties but I got lost.
It's meant to refer to the fact that in 2014, the MNR, UNIR, and the PDC formed a single alliance, while in 2019, they all contested the election on different fronts. Perhaps that information is not eminently relevant, though, and I've elected to just remove it. Mention of Ortiz and Lema was also removed, shortened to just "one of their presidential candidates". Hopefully now the paragraph more clearly explains that UNIR contested the election with the MDS. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; the revised text is much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~"the Senate's second vice presidency corresponded to the PDC caucus": what does this mean?~~
Rephrased to "was meant to be headed". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~"precisely pointing to her capacity as second vice president of the Senate to validate the claim": suggest "citing her role as second vice president of the Senate as validation of her claim".~~
Done That's much clearer, thanks. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Even so, among opponents, Zamora's postulation fueled longstanding allegations of "collaborationism" between the MAS and UNIR dating back to the 2014 election": suggest "added fuel to" to make it clear earlier in the sentence that these allegations already existed.
Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Directive" seems to have a different meaning in this article than I usually see, so I'd like to check the translation is correct. As a noun the only meaning is "an instruction". Does it refer to some organization within the government? Could it be better translated by another word?
It's more analogous to "board of directors", but that term is pretty exclusive to business settings. I believe "directive" in and of itself can still be archaically used. Google's definition does state that as an adjective, it can mean "involving the management or guidance of operations", which is what is being referred to in this sense, with the Senates directive consisting of the body's president, vice presidents, and secretaries (i.e. managers). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an adjective, yes, but I don't think I've ever seen it used as a noun in that way, and I can't find support for it in a couple of dictionaries I've tried. What do news stories about Bolivian politics in English-language sources use for this word? If they use "directive" I think we can stick with it, since it would then be the standard usage in the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up going with executive board, based on mesa directiva, the governing boards of Mexico's legislative chambers. While I've only ever seen Bolivia's legislative chambers referred to as the direcitva, it stands to reason that it would be synonymous with mesa directiva. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On further inspection, many English publications call Mexico's body the "directive board", which I think is a good median that could be used here. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly after leaving office, the Prosecutor's Office announced that it was investigating Zamora on suspicion of improper use of influence and breach of duties": suggest "Shortly after Zamora left office"; and I'd give the date his office terminated - presumably with the election.
Added information of end of term and possible electoral bids that never panned out. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delay spotchecks till these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of minor points left but nothing that would prevent me promoting this to GA. I'll do the spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

FN 27 cites "The imminent crisis Zamora's administration faced was the lack of fuel in La Paz, owing to ongoing blockades by opponents of the new government." Verified.
FN 5 cites "Within two years of taking office, the MIR lost its party registration, owing to its inability to obtain two percent of the vote in that year's constituent assembly elections." Verified.
FN 40 cites "Shortly thereafter, Zamora was subpoenaed to testify and present his defense before prosecutors." I think this is OK, but "subpoenaed" has a specific legal meaning in English and I can't tell if the original has something equivalent. If not it might be better to make it just "summoned".
You're correct in that the Spanish citado can be used both to mean "subpoenaed" and "summoned". The nuance is in the legality of each; "summons" more implies a civil case, whereas "subpoena" corresponds to criminal proceedings. In this context, I think the fact that he was asked to testify in a criminal investigation and that his failure to present himself resulted in immediate criminal actions against him, I'd say "subpoena" is the more correct term. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "subpoena" is better in that case. Of the unstruck points above, the only one I would like to ask about again before I promote this is the sequence in the lead. Can it be made more chronological? It does seem backward to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made some adjustments to the lead, leaving his ministerial and legislative positions in descending order but putting the rest chronologically. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rad, thanks for another review. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2022 (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.