Talk:1931 Salvadoran presidential election/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 04:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk · contribs) 08:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

¿Qué tal? I recently reviewed another article by this nominator. I can read the Spanish sources and can access the most cited source on the page, Ching’s dissertation, which most other editors don’t seem to be able to. I shall thus take responsibility for this review. I have a busy weekend ahead, but I shall try to have the entire article reviewed within 48 hours. – ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long delay. I’ll get to this shortly. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 04:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Six images total.

• The photo of Araujo might need a clearer source.

• I don’t know the exact source

• The photos of Gómez Zarate, Córdova, Martínez, and Araujo’s inauguration check out.
• No issues with the clipping of the Diario Oficial article.

I assume that you could not find free images of Claramount or Molina.

• Of the pages which I could see, Anderson was reliable.
• Bernal Ramírez and Quijano de Batres, Ching, Haggerty, and the Diario Oficial checked out.
• I could not access Krennerich, but the source appears reputable.
• Grieb is mostly good, although “Córdova told his supporters in the Legislative Assembly to vote for Araujo.[23]” I did not see this on Grieb page 153.

For the infobox, you might want to include a parameter for running mates, even though Araujo was the only candidate with one.
No other comments here, looks good.

I tried but it adds a lot of empty space and doesn’t look good.

• “President Pío Romero Bosque implemented democratic reforms in El Salvador during his presidency, either to combat the radicalization of laborers,[1] to foster relations with the United States,[2] or to “leave his mark on history” by breaking with the Meléndez–Quiñónez dynasty that ruled El Salvador from 1913 to 1927.[3]” Checking Ching, he says that the reasons for Romero’s democratization are unknown because of the uncertain status of his presidential papers. He also says that it could be both modernization and improving relations with the U.S. In theory, then it could be all of the above, or none of the above. The present wording makes it sound like it has to be one of those. I’d suggest rewording it to something along the lines of “President Pío Romero Bosque implemented democratic reforms in El Salvador during his presidency, though his motivations for doing so are disputed. Theories include that it was to…”

Reworded

• “The government itself also increased its presence at polling stations…” I think you can drop “itself”.

Removed

• For the political parties, were any, or all, of them formed specifically for this election? Romero’s article citing Wilson and Lucero (which I can access) and White (which I cannot) seems to imply that all six were formed after he lifted a ban on parties in 1930. If these are the same six parties, I’d mention the lifting of the ban in 1930 and that these were created afterwards, either in this section or the previous one when democratic reforms are mentioned.

• Prudencia Ayala‘s article says that she was the first woman to run for the presidency in El Salvador and Latin America. If you could find a source for this claim, I would include it in this article as well, since I think it’s very notable.

• For the table of candidates, no sources are cited.

The sources are in the above paragraph.

• “Araujo was a prominent laborist leader who was stylized as the “champion of labor”.” Who did the stylizing? Araujo himself? His supporters? Both?

• Per Ching (p.347-348), Araujo was involved in private business between elections. This is potentially notable since he seems to have been the only candidate who had not held a prior political or military post. I would suggest working that in somewhere, either in this or the next section.

• Ching says on page 249 that Araujo was himself a wealthy landowner. This should likely be added after the part about land redistribution for context.

Added

• “One week before the election, Martínez suspended his campaign and endorsed Araujo in exchange for becoming Araujo’s running mate, likely due to Martínez believing he would not be able to win the election.” According to Martínez’s page, which cites Anderson (p. 50), Martínez’s endorsement of Araujo likely did not sway many voters. This may just be Anderson’s opinion, but I think it merits inclusion here.

Added

Out of curiosity (this doesn’t require a change, I’m asking for my own sake), if you know, when were women first allowed to vote in El Salvador? I assume they weren’t in this election. No further comments here.

Women were allowed to vote starting in 1939 PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 18:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• “Araujo’s presidency only lasted ten months, culminating in a military coup d’état on 2 December 1931 that overthrew Araujo.” If you can summarize it in a single sentence, I’d include why this happened, since earlier it seems as if the armed forces were satisfied by Martínez being the vice president.

• Similarly, the lead calls this “El Salvador’s first free and fair election”. When was the second? I assume the 1984 election, but that article doesn’t cite a source for that claim. Again, I would include a one-sentence mention of that election here, and potentially in the lead.

• Stable, no edit wars.
• Article’s tone is written from a neutral point of view.
• All material is cited inline (with the exception of the aforementioned table of candidates).
• Sources are reliable.
• Coverage is suitably in-depth.
• Categories are suitable.

Another very well-put-together article. After my concerns have been addressed, it should pass the criteria listed below. I shall put the article on hold to allow you to respond. – ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail: