Talk:Patricia Paputsakis/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) 12:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Earwig shows no issues.

• I'm not convinced File:(Logo) Basta.svg is "simple geometric shapes or text"; there's a recognizable design there. A FUR would be possible for an article about the organization, but it's hard to see how one could be written for this article.
  • I'd say you're probably right. I'll remove it here and nominate the image for deletion. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• What makes infotarija.com a reliable source? From their about page they seem to be news aggregators, with no journalistic mission and perhaps no editorial functions.
  • I'd also ordinarily seek a better source. However, since all that's being cited here is what Paz himself is quoted as saying, I'd say it should be fine. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Can we link "circumscription" to electoral district in the lead? It's not a common usage and the link would be helpful to readers.
  • I think we previously discussed this in the previous GA for Zamora. I'd point to my comments there and add that "circumscription" likely falls under subject-specific knowledge. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

    I won't hold up GA for this, but I don't understand the problem. Our dab page on circumscription links to electoral district, which lists "circumscription" in bold as an alternative name for an electoral district. Where's the harm in linking it for those who don't know the term? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    I suppose it just feels like unnecessary overlink, though admittedly, I am a bit unreasonably hung up on this. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    I wouldn't even use a word like "circumscription" in the lead and would try to avoid it in the article text. I know a lot of politics jargon but never heard that before. What percent of readers would recognize it? I'm betting it's pretty low, although the word may be used more in Spanish. The word can be replaced in all locations by "electoral district". (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    As stated in a different GA, I prefer to use "circumscription" both because it's the most accurate translation and because "district" implies that the department itself has 45 districts, whereas in actuality, the entire country as a whole is divided into about 70 districts splits between the nine departments (e.g. Circumscriptions 1-5 are in Chuquisaca, 5-20 in La Paz, etc.). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    I don't know why "district" would have any such implication. When translating from another language, the translation cannot be deemed to be a success if it uses language that the reader won't understand. Being understandable to a broad audience is also required by the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    Note that most English language sources about Bolivia tend to use "electoral district" or similar phrases. (examples: [1][2]) "Bolivia circumscription" on Google scholar returns mostly results about biology. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Shortly after leaving office, UNIR nominated Paputsakis to run as a candidate": shortly after who left office?
  • Changed to "Nearing the conclusion of her term". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

    Can we make this "In late 2014, near the conclusion of Paputsakis's term, UNIR nominated her"? The second clause still reads as though the subject ("UNIR") is the target of the pronoun. Adding "In late 2014" also helps the reader understand the chronology a little better, per the point below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    That works, though we're already stretching the information actually given by the source, which just states: "she was nominated as a [UNIR] councillor in [the] 2015 [elections]". I changed around the wording some more, but if you still think the year she was nominated should be included, I can probably find a general source giving the candidate registration date. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    I think that would be helpful, yes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    Done. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• We mention her nomination in the 2015 municipal election, which according to the source took place in 2015, and then jump back in time to mention the December 2014 TSE ruling. I think this could be better sequenced. How about "In December 2014, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) issued a controversial ruling barring all legislators who held office in the outgoing legislature from running in the 2015 elections. The court argued that their permanent residence in the last two years had been La Paz and not other regions, contravening the Constitution's residency requirements for candidates. In early 2015, the UNIR nominated Paputsakis to run as a candidate for Tarija municipal councillor in the 2015 departmental elections, but the TSE ruling meant that Paputsakis' political prospects were in doubt."
  • In Bolivia, the nomination and registration of candidates occurs in December of the year preceding the election. As such, it's actually already chronological, though I see where the confusion would lie. I added "had" to "issued a ruling", hopefully that adds some clarity. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

    That definitely helps, but I think if we can be explicit about the date of her renomination, either as I suggest above or in some other way, that would be even clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    See above. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Though this temporarily allowed Paputsakis to continue in the running, her candidacy remained mired by legal battles." Were there "legal battles" other than the doubt about the TSE ruling?
  • Her final disqualification was subject to a separate suit, that has been clarified now. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Why is Ponce's designation described as "impromptu"?
  • Changed to "sudden". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• How can Paputsakis's removal from the electoral list be a hostile act on Montes's part, when he had no control over whether she would be removed?
  • So, I've opted to rewrite a large chunk of this paragraph. The original phrasing was vague and unclear, largely because the circumstances themselves were unclear and difficult to parse. However, with the added context, the implied cause of Paputsakis' removal should now be more easily understandable. That being that while on the surface she was disqualified due to a semi-anonymous lawsuit against her candidacy, outlets like El País have since concluded that the true source of the suit was Montes himself, in a bid to get his wife into office. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• "to promote greater comprehension in adults and adolescents on subjects related to": would we lose anything if we shortened this to "to improve public understanding of"? I can see that "Adults and adolescents" leaves out children who are mentioned as targets of a subsequent program, but is the distinction important here?
  • No, you're correct, I just tend to be overly wordy at times. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• "with the aim of reducing such occurrences": suggest "with the aim of reducing these problems".
  •  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• "The plan established an observatory on addictions and the supply of alcoholic beverages": what does "observatory" mean here?
  • "observatory" is a common term used for institutions that monitor drug addiction. Examples include the French Observatory for Drugs and Drug Addiction, the Inter-American Observatory on Drugs, etc. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• "By 2019, the project had lowered incidents in Cercado to below eighteen percent": what does the eighteen percent refer to? 18% of pregnancies were teenagers? Or 18% of teenagers get pregnant? I.e. at some point before age 20? Or out of wedlock?
  • Clarified that it had reduced "prevalence of underage pregnancy" to below 18%. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

    My question was how the statistic is defined. Looking at how "teen pregnancy rate" is usually defined, it seems to be births per 1000 females aged 15-19 years in the US, and presumably something similar elsewhere. I think that's OK to pass GA, but if you can tell what the definition is here that would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    Ok, so I've found a source where she clearly states the definition, that being that for every 100 adolescents, 18 are pregnant. I suck at statistics, perhaps you could parse how to structure that into the sentence. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    Good find. It says "According to UNFPA data, Cercado manages 18% of adolescent pregnancies while San Lorenzo has 50" and "This means that for every 100 adolescents, 18 are pregnant." Reading this literally would mean at any given time, 50% of adolescents in San Lorenzo are pregnant, which is silly. I think it must mean that 18% of the women in Cercado get pregnant during their adolescence. Checking the UNFPA and WHO websites seems to be in line with this. So maybe "By 2019, the project had reduced the rate of pregnancy among adolescents in Cercado to below eighteen percent"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    Perfect, done. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• "leading the Secretariat to deliver its plan to the United Nations Population Fund": "deliver" isn't very clear. I think this means they sent the UN a document saying how they did it; is that correct? If so it could be clearer.
  • How about "present its plan"? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

    Looking at the source I think that would be overstating it. I see also that we only have Paputsakis's word that that this was well-received by international organizations; if we had independent sourcing for that it would worth adding, but I think it would be safer to cut it. We do have the statistics for the neighbouring provinces which highlight that it was a positive achievement; I think that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    What about just "The program's successes led the Secretariat to present its plan", using the given statistics to justify "successes" while leaving out Paputsakis' claim about the UN or other institution's reactions. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

     Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• "When relations between Montes and Paz ultimately broke down": can we get a word or two more about this? It's foreshadowed earlier, but given that as far as I can tell Montes is out of power (i.e. we said Paz succeeded him as mayor) why would Paz care? Does Montes still have party control?
  • As established with Zamora, Montes remained party leader and maintained regional influence far past his mayoral term (In 2021, he was elected governor, demonstrating his continued presence.) I changed "burgeoning" to "breakaway" so that it's more clear that Paz's PG split from UNIR. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

    The various edits you made here and above have made this much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• "of his father, Jaime Paz Zamora, Paputsakis reluctantly endorsed the former president": suggest "of his father, former president Jaime Paz Zamora, Paputsakis reluctantly added her endorsement". As written I had to follow the link to be sure this was the intended meaning.
  •  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• "At the end of the campaign, Paputsakis emerged as the winner of the race in circumscription 40, attaining a popular vote plurality of 31.69 percent. However, subsequent social unrest over": I think this could be shortened. How about "Paputsakis won her race with a popular vote plurality of 31.69 percent, but subsequent social unrest over"?
  • Merged into a single sentence. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• "with CC opting to postulate trade unionist Edwin Rosas instead": "postulate" is not a natural usage here. Perhaps "nominate"?
  • Changed to "selecting" as "re-nominate" and "nominate" in the same sentence would be repetitive. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• "the difficult situation of finding a last-minute mayoral successor": "successor" seems the wrong word, as whoever PG picked would run for office but not necessarily succeed Paz. How about "nominee" instead?
  •  Done Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• "with Paputsakis profiled as a possible candidate": suggested "considered to be" or "discussed" or "mooted", depending on what the sources will support. "Profiled" carries the implication of a document, internal or in the press, describing her chances, which even if true isn't the main point.
  • "Discussed" is good. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Spotchecks -- since I'm doing this with machine translation, I may be missing support in the sources, so I'll apologize in advance if so.

• FN 4 cites "As with many former student unionists, upon leaving university, Paputsakis sought to enter the political field, joining United to Renew (UNIR), the party of Tarija Mayor Oscar Montes. In 2009, as part of UNIR's alliance with National Convergence (CN), she was elected to represent Tarija's circumscription 45 in the Chamber of Deputies, serving as a substitute under Víctor Hugo Zamora. Aged 23, Paputsakis was one of the youngest legislators in the Plurinational Legislative Assembly." I don't see anything that would support "as with many former student unionists", and this is not the sort of source that could be used for a generality like that anyway. I also don't see mention of circumscription 45.
  • The article states: "Like almost everyone who passed through the FUL, [Paputsakis] sought space in politics." FUL standing for Local University Federation, a students union. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, missed that. Can we add a cite for circumscription 45? Or did I miss that too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    I'll add a citation. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• FN 21 cites "As secretary, Paputsakis' public profile led her to be considered a viable candidate for multiple political positions or even as a possible mayoral successor to Paz, should he not seek reelection." I don't see support for "multiple political positions"; the article only seems to discuss her as a successor to Paz.
  • Rephrased. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

    It now says "led her to be considered a viable candidate for higher office, including as a possible mayoral successor to Paz", but the source only talks about the mayoral candidacy. I think this would be safer as "led her to be considered a viable mayoral successor to Paz" or something similar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    That works. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• FN 28 cites "She was not re-nominated in the snap 2020 elections, with CC opting to postulate trade unionist Edwin Rosas instead." Verified.
• FNs 15 & 16 cite "In 2017, Paputsakis launched a family development program seeking to encourage assertive communication, dialogue, and respect between family members. As part of this, the Secretariat established Municipal Prevention Brigades in over seventy educational institutions, offering workshops to primary and secondary students to train them in recognizing signs of sexual abuse and violence by or between parents." The article mentions the Municipal Prevention Brigades, but it doesn't seem clear that the Brigades were established as part of Paputsakis's program as opposed to previously existing. And the source has "services continue to be strengthened to support families in situations of social risk" so I'm not even sure she "launched" the family development program -- it sounds more like something she inherited.
  • FN 16 states: "Patricia Paputsakis ... reported that the Prevention Brigades will be deployed in more than 70 educational units." Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

    "Established" means created; "deployed" means put into action. It appears she didn't create them? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    If they were created in the previous administration, at the latest, that would've been in May 2015. It's doubtful they had these ready to go but waited until October 2017, a full two and a half years later to put them into effect.

    Of course, we could always just use "deployed" and not worry about the hassle of who actually created them. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    Agreed. I changed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

    Tubular. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• FN 9 cites "In January, the TSE opted to exclude substitute legislators from its ruling, reasoning that, on average, they resided more in their regions than their titular counterparts." The phrase "on average they reside more in their places, in their regions" is in the source, so rather than trying to paraphrase further it might be easier to just quote Ovando.
  • "Their places" sounds odd. Changed "regions" to "constituencies". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, better than my suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• FN 6 cites "In the leadup to the 2014 general election, Zamora resigned to run for higher office, allowing Paputsakis to assume office as the titular deputy for circumscription 45 for the remainder of her term." I don't have access to this source; can you paste here the text that supports this?
  • The archive link is not locked behind registration. It states: "The list of those appointed ... is as follows: ... Diana Paputsakis for Víctor Hugo Zamora." Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• FN 36 cites "Her public policy plan proposed improving basic services, new environmental regulations, and economic reactivation through an alliance between the public and private sectors." Verified, with some unavoidable repetition of rote phrases in the original.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• All queries responded to. Apologies for the delay, I was busy doing jumping jacks for seven days straight. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  No problem on the delay; I've been mostly unavailable for several days too so it wouldn't have made much difference. A few replies interspersed among the strikes above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Krisgabwoosh: passing, with a couple of comments. I think "circumscription" should be glossed or linked or footnoted, but I don't think it's worth holding up GA for. For the "In late 2014" change just made, you were going to add a general source to establish the date of registration. I'm not going to wait for that since I'm aware it's implied by the existing information in the article, but I think it would be good to add it. Everything else is fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Will add citation. I'm also starting to be swayed on linking "circumscription" to "electoral district". I'll leave it for now until I have the time to link it on all articles that include it, so as to keep the consistent. Anyways, thanks for another in-depth review! Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2022 (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.