Talk:Carlos Subirana Gianella/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Krisgabwoosh (talk · contribs) 12:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: That Tired Tarantula (talk · contribs) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and start responding to these tomorrow. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 00:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @That Tired Tarantula: I was hoping to get this GA tackled this afternoon, but there is a coup d'état currently underway in Bolivia. I was set to depart to the country in three days, so I will now be busy making several calls and getting unexpected affairs in order. I may not be able to meet the one-week deadline. Feel free to close the GA if that happens. Sorry for the inconvenience. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's fine; I'll push the deadline back a week. I'm sorry that that situation is happening over there and that you've had to go through it. Please let me know if you need more time later. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 22:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

First look

Criteria

• No maintenance templates: Y
• Relavent images are present: Y
• Article is stable; no ongoing edit wars or significant changes recently: Y

Copyright

• No copyright violations/plagiarism: Y
• Images are free (unless a rationale is given if they are not) and tagged: Y

Prose

Broadness and focus

The article is mostly focused, but there are a few times where it goes off-topic. Three sentences in the first paragraph of the early life and career section talk about Carlos Subirana Gianella's family, but not him, and the last paragraph of the article analyzes the shift in his family's political beliefs instead of just his. The first three sentences of the second paragraph in the Chamber of Deputies section don't mention Subirana and the last sentences of first paragraph of the tenure section comment on the number of younger members of legislature in general. As a result, Subirana's family should just be mentioned in the early life and career section and details about politics should be kept to a minimum; they should only be elaborated on when the reader wouldn't understand what happened in certain points of Subirana's life otherwise. Here are my suggestions:

Current text	Change to:
"Carlos Subirana was born on 18 August 1986 in Santa Cruz de la Sierra to businessman Carlos Subirana Suárez and his wife, Ana María Gianella Peredo. The Subirana family are a wealthy, well-established clan in Santa Cruz with a penchant for public service. His father worked as an executive in the financial services sector and served as minister of justice in the administration of Hugo Banzer; his uncle, Wálter, was minister of labor in the second cabinet of Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada."	"Carlos Subirana was born on 18 August 1986 in Santa Cruz de la Sierra to businessman Carlos Subirana Suárez, a member of the Subirana family, and his wife, Ana María Gianella Pedro."
"In an abrupt about-face, Subirana flipped his support to the MAS in the 2014 election. The reversal came as his father had been nominated to contest a seat in parliament on behalf of the ruling party. The apparent shift in disposition was not entirely without precedent: the Subirana family had long been open about its alignment toward the political left. Yet still, both Subiranas had until then been open critics of government policy – the elder through his newspaper and the younger as an opposition lawmaker. In any case, the family's political realignment left Subirana on the electoral margins, and he was not nominated for a second term."	"Subirana aligned with the MAS in the 2014 election because his father was nominated to contest a seat in parliament on behalf of the ruling party; until then, Carlos Subirana Gianella was a critic of government policy. The realignment caused him to not be nominated for a second term."
"Subirana was sworn in on 19 January 2010; at 23, he was the youngest voting member of the chamber and is one of the youngest persons ever elected to parliament. A significant aspect of the 2010–2015 legislature was its youthful roster of members; the youngest lawmakers in the freshman class were the first to be elected under the auspices of the 2009 Constitution, which lowered the age threshold to hold office from 25 to 18 years."	"Subirana was sworn in on 19 January 2010; at 23, he was the youngest voting member of the chamber and one of the youngest people ever elected to parliament. He was elected under the 2009 Constituion, which lowered the mimimum age for holding office from 25 to 18 years."
"The MNR maintained a protracted downward trajectory into the 2009 election season. Eminently aware of its diminished electoral presence, the party's presidential candidate, Germán Antelo, withdrew to back National Convergence (CN), the big tent alliance of Manfred Reyes Villa. For his support, CN granted Antelo broad discretion over its slate of candidates in Santa Cruz. Subirana, still in law school then, was among the few MNR members Antelo selected as part of his pick of postulants."	"When he was in law school, Subirana was selected by Germán Antelo to become a candidate in Santa Cruz."

Of course, the wording doesn't have to be exactly the same as this; please do whatever you think is best as long as the article stays on topic.

When it comes to the article's broadness, it seems like the section about Subirana's legal and media career is lacking information, since I found several sources about it and specific events in his career online. I also found information about a controversy involving Subirana at the end of his political career, but I haven't looked into it very much yet. The other sections look good. Overall, it covers most of the information about the subject, but there is also some stuff that would be helpful if it were added.

Writing and MoS

The writing is pretty good overall, but there are a couple minor errors; if the GA passes, I'll edit the prose a bit to fix them. I don't see any problems as far as MoS goes.

Neutrality

I am not concerned about due weight in this article; it seems like viewpoints are being adequately presented. But I am concerned about editorialism, since I'm noticing a lot of words to watch. But this is a shorter article, so it can be fixed in a couple quick edits.

Sources

Evaluating sources

• LinkedIn is not considered to be reliable and is published by the subject. The other online sources look good.
• All the sources in the publication section check out.
• The first source in the book and encyclopedia section appears to be self-published, so it should not be used. The other sources are good.

Citation accuracy

There are a few pieces of information that I can't see mentioned in the sources:

1. It doesn't say that Ana María Gianella Peredo was Carlos Subirana Suárez's wife, but the writing corresponds with what the source says for everything else.

2. Where does it talk about his uncle?

3. Self-published; not reliable

4. None of the three sources mention when he graduated.

6. Doesn't say that the firm was his father's or that he was a paralegal

7. From his LinkedIn profile; unreliable

13. Where does it mention neoliberalism?

20. It doesn't mention when Rodolfo Avilés was sworn in.

22. Using the self-written source is fine here.

23. The source mentions how other members of his party questioned him about supporting MAS, but doesn't make any statements about him supporting the MAS more in general.

24. It might be good to mention the incident that the source talks about as well.

25. Looks good, but the self-published source should be removed

29. Self-published, but fine since it presents the Subirana's viewpoint on his family's political beliefs

37. It only mentions 2014.

All of the other citations and the ref layout look good.

Overall

There are some issues, but they're minor and can be fixed pretty easily; the article looks good overall. I'm placing the GA review on hold for one week. In order for the GA to pass, the article will have to stay on-topic (see the spots I mentioned in the broadness and focus section), have the sources published by the subject removed (except for the exceptions I mentioned), provide sources for/remove any unsourced information, and words to watch will have to be removed, unless they're necessary for explaining things. As far as broadness goes, what I've commented earlier is just a suggestion; the article is broad overall. It won't be a factor in my final decision for the review.