Talk:Mario Choque/GA1

{{atopg

| status =

| result = Passed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Mario Choque/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario Choque/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 18:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

:* {{yo|Sammi Brie}} Hi! Sorry to leave you hanging. I've been super busy, but I should've let you know I saw the review opened. I see you took the liberty of addressing most notes, already{{snd}}very kind, thank you!{{snd}}I'll finish the rest now. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; width:50em"
height=50 | GA review {{small|(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)}}
#It is reasonably well written. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|hold}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y}} It is factually accurate and verifiable. :a (references): {{GAList/check|y}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|y}} It is broad in its coverage. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}} It follows the neutral point of view policy. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}} It is stable. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}} It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
style="text-align:center;" | Overall: Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|hold}}
height=30|15px · 15px · 15px · 15px

{{teal|Did you know? If you fancy doing so, I always have plenty of GA nominees to review. Just look for the all-uppercase titles in the Television section. Reviews always appreciated.}}

General suggestion: You haven't touched this page since October. Fresh eyes might find other things to tweak. Everything looks pretty good, though. Ping me when ready. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

:* Agreed. I think the article still generally holds up, but doesn't quite conform to my current citation style. That's more of a personal thing, though, so it shouldn't prevent the article from meeting GA criteria. Krisgabwoosh (talk)

• {{!xt|where he also worked as an aid}} You want "aide" with an E.

:{{done}}

• {{!xt|low to mid-level}} should be {{xt|low- to mid-level}}

:{{done}}

• {{!xt|he continued to deliver consulting, for the Oruro Telecommunications Cooperative from 1996 to 2007 and the}} Remove the comma. Consider "he continued to consult for..." or "he continued to provide consulting to..."

:{{done}}

• {{!xt|the only party he ever held membership in}} Avoid ending the sentence in a preposition and try {{!xt|the only party of which he was ever a member}}. That appositive should be slid up next to the MAS-IPSP name, with 2002 after it.

:{{replaced}}

Is there a reason that ref [26] is a Blogspot mirror?

:* From the context, I'm certain that this page was mirrored from a press release on the Senate website, but I haven't been able to track down the original{{snd}}if it's even archived. Adolfo Mendoza was a senator during this time, so I consider his blogspot reliable and use it when no other option presents itself. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• 1: 2011 death of Ancasi in traffic accident. {{tick}}
• 6: {{tq|Choque nació en un hogar minero. Tras cumplir el servicio militar, estudió economía en la UTO y empezó a trabajar en funciones de baja responsabilidad en la Empresa metalúrgica de Vinto...}} The location of the UTO and his military service probably justifies the "return".
• 9: Mention of SENASAG in the personal bio. {{tick}}
• 10: The BID is mentioned in both sources, while Nuevo Estado mentions his title there. {{tick}}
• 23: Choque is not listed among the senators being nominated by the MAS in this 2014 article. {{tick}}

:* I have a question on this, actually. Is a claim by omission considered verifiable? As in, am I generally in the clear if I say "so and so wasn't nominated for reelection" and cite it with a source that includes a list of individuals who were nominated{{snd}}while not explicitly repeating the claim. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

::@Krisgabwoosh Perhaps rephrase as "was not on the list of candidates nominated"? If you do that, I'll pass this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

:::I changed "nominated for reelection" to "listed for reelection", hopefully that should do. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No copyvio or close paraphrasing issues.

One CC-BY headshot, as is standard for these articles.

{{abot}}