Talk:Iván Arias

Note for future GA reviewer and article creator

Hi. I came across this in NPP. I am concerned about verifiability and the apparent lack of of secondary, reliable sources here. A significant portion of the content on this article is sourced either to massive pdfs (which are written by/with Arias, not about him), television productions, interviews, and other primary/unreliable sources. There are also signs of original research, from these primary sources. This article is very well written, but the sourcing for this content needs serious work. And if secondary, reliable sources are not available, the content would need to be removed. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ping article creator. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

There are entire paragraphs cited to soures that barely mention him, or are written by him, or are his interviews. This...needs a full rewrite, and honestly I think this should be draftified considering the extent of this issue. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I wrote the article. I'd be happy to take a look at your concerns if you could elaborate in further detail, specifically on claims of "original research" as I had hoped to have been thorough. Unfortunately, for figures such as this, writings on the subject are scarce, so I can only work with what few sources are available.

In the case of biographical information (early life, etc.) all that is really available are his own account through interviews. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe personal memoirs preclude an article from being deemed credible (Bill Clinton has been reviewed as Good despite many of the article's claims being sourced from his personal memoirs). And given the lack of published written memoirs (he has none), I've chosen to treat some of these interviews (specifically QD Show) as audiovisual memoirs, given that recounting his past is the entire substance of them. One paragraph I can see objections coming from is the second, which is largely sourced from an Opinión op-ed. However, that I believe would still fall under the "memoir" category, with my objections being based on how the information was conveyed (I was weary of including too many quotes and the like; some information could probably be omitted but were kept to be decided upon by later review).

Further, none of the works cited in the bibliography were written by or in collaboration with Arias, though one is a collection of interviews in which he gives a written response. As for the "massive pdfs" that "barely mention him". You'll find that the citations used there are purely supplementary, meant to cite surrounding context (What is liberation theology? Who is Víctor Hugo Cárdenas? What were the effects of the Law of Popular Participation?, etc.) and not make claims about Arias himself.

Of course, a large part of nominating these articles for GA is to have that thorough third-party review. So as stated above, I'd be happy to hear and rectify concerns you may have. <3 Krisgabwoosh (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You have been very thorough. To the point that you're analyzing primary and self-published sources to fit it into the article. Which is not what we do here. This would be absolutely amazing if we weren't an encyclopedia that relies on independent, secondary, reliable sources. And thanks for the clarification on the supplementary pdfs, but take for example the FES 2004 pdf, which is cited 6 times in the article. The citations are from Arias's section, which is something he wrote. Significant parts of this article are sourced to primary sources, or sources he either wrote himself or participated in the writing in. The interview in urgente.bo, the QD Show interview, are cited a lot. There are independent sources here, and Arias is clearly notable, but...at present, this article is too reliant on sources we cannot use. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I could do a line-by-line review of this but I legitimately don't have the time at the moment. My goal here was to make sure that any GA reviewer recognizes that this requires a line-by-line review to ensure that content cited purely to primary sources, self-published or influenced sources, etc., is removed. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)