# Talk:1933 Spanish general election

Somone should find out the actualy percentage of votes, not the percentage of seats, because it gives you the idea the Spanish were facist even then, which they weren't.
Sillyness about "even then" etc, but the core contention - ie that's percentage of seats. Distribution of votes was very different - is correct. 84.59.160.170 (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi.  I have signed up to do a bit of a copy edit as per request on the guild of copy editors page.  I tend to take my time and discuss my proposed changes before making any actual changes.  That often involves asking questions, so I hope I can do that here.  Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk  20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Before starting any kind of edit, I usually read the whole article through several times so I understand what it is I’m seeking to polish.  In doing that with this article, I have come up with a number of questions I cannot answer just by re-reading the piece.
I wonder whether you can help me out.

Does the word ‘legislative’ in the lead have some special meaning?  If so, can we expand on it?  Does it refer to legislative assembly, or perhaps a legally mandated election?
When you say, in the lead, that the right coalition was 'preferable' under the new system, do you mean that the new electoral system favoured the right?  Are there details on that, or is it a paraphrase from the source?
When you say, in the background section, that ‘members of the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) trade union willing to cooperate with the Republic were forced out, and it continued to oppose the government’, do you mean forced out of the fascist grouping, or the government, or something else?
The following from the background section seems unclear: ’Both the Socialists, who favoured reform, and the conservative right, who were against reform, were up in arms.’  Can you explain what you mean?  Literally arming themselves with guns?  Just annoyed or critical of the government?
Three personal observations:

I'm assuming, based on your personal page and spelling, that you are using British English (my own preference as well).  If so, do you think it appropriate to place the language template at the top of the page notifying all future editors that this is the preference for the article?
The box at the top right of the page has the headings first party and second party.  These are not self-explanatory.  What are the first and second parties?  Can we put party or adjectival names to them?
May I suggest a consolidation of notes, sources and references into a single section called references, as in this recently featured article [[1]].  This will enhance the stylistic improvement of the article, even if it does not appear strictly necessary.
This page is now in my watchlist, so I will see any reply you leave here.  Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk  10:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the specific things (the first list). However, with regards to the second:
Yes, British English seems appropriate. I'm not 'up' on the templates though, feel free if you are;
The first and second party thing is the result of the infobox - the use of initials rather than full party name underneath is also;
I'd like to leave the sections as they are since the content of the 'Notes' which is extra factual detail is significantly different to the nature of the references; this is in common to a few other GAs I've done – and does not seem to be an issue in the FA you linked. (The notes are also much longer than the citations.) Either way, doesn't seem to be much point changing it.
I welcome any further comments Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  19:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Grandiose, I am proposing re-wording the lead thus -

Elections to Spain’s legislature, the Cortes Generales, were held 19 November 1933 for all 473 seats in the unicameral Cortes of the Second Spanish Republic. Since the previous elections of 1931, a new constitution had been ratified, and the franchise extended to more than six million women.  The governing Republican-Socialist coalition had fallen apart, with the Radicals beginning to support a newly united political right.
The right contested the 1933 election as a coalition, the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right (CEDA), favoured under new electoral laws enacted earlier in the year, and capitalising on disenchantment with the government among Catholics and other conservatives.  CEDA campaigned on reversing the reforms that had been made under the Republic, and on freeing political prisoners.  Anarchists favoured abstention from the vote, which led to a significant victory for the right over the left, with CEDA and the Radicals winning 114 and 102 seats respectively, while the Socialist Party won only 59.
Let me know your thoughts.  I won't make any changes unless you give me the thumbs up.  Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk  09:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll update the lead with some of your suggestions and some of my preferred language/factual corrections. See what you think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  10:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


### Mention of CEDA
Apologies for the delay in returning to the copy edit.  Life has an annoying tendency to interfere with my Wikipedia contributions.
As already flagged, I propose to amend the second sentence of the second paragraph thus –

The newly formed Catholic conservative Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right (Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas or CEDA), gained 115 seats ...
As much as people with an interest in Spanish history may know what CEDA was, many others don’t, and articles ought to provide the stand-alone information necessary to make sense of the topic.
The re-wording also removes the synthesis of ‘By contrast’ to adopt a more neutral tone.  If this synthesis is nevertheless thought to be desirable because it paraphrases a source, consider putting it in quote marks to indicate it is the source’s assertion, not Wikipedia’s.
Please discuss or approve here, and I will make the change.  Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk  22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine. ("By contrast" wasn't intended to be about the difference between parties, merely the difference in outcome, but I'm sure the reader can see that without it.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  08:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Below is an edited version of the first sentence of the ‘Background’ section, with strikethroughs indicating further suggested changes as explained below.

Elections in June 1931 had returned a large majority of Republicans and Socialists to the Cortes, with the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) gaining 116 seats and the Radical Republican Party under Alejandro Lerroux's leadership 94. The government was controlled by a Republican-Socialist coalition, whose members had varying objectives. The state's financial position was poor. Wealth redistribution supported by the new government attracted criticism from the wealthy. The government also  attempted to tackle poverty in rural areas by instituting an eight-hour day and giving security of tenure to farm workers, drawing criticism from landlords.
Is the leadership of Lerroux somehow more notable than the leadership of the socialist party?  If not, consider mentioning both leaders or none.  Does it need to be said that the Republican-Socialist coalition had varying objectives?  Is it ever mentioned again how that played out in practice?  The weight of this sentence seems to be on wealth re-distribution and agrarian reform.  Consider dropping the mention of the Republican-Socialist alliance altogether, since it is already inferred by the seat count, and dropping the mention of varying objectives, unless there’s a salient example of why this mattered (ie, conflicts within the government leading to instability or public criticism).
If I have altered the facts, or more detail needs to be added, please copy paste the sentence, make the necessary changes, and post it on this page in reply.  Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk  01:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

My proposal for rewording the second paragraph of the ‘Background’ section.

Parliamentary opposition was led by three groups. The first included Catholic movements such as the Asociación Católica de Propagandistas.  The second group consisted of organisations that had supported the monarchy, such as the Renovación Española and Carlists, who wanted to see the new republic overthrown in a violent uprising.  The third group were fascist organisations.  Members of the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) trade union movement willing to cooperate with the Republic were forced out of the CNT, which continued to oppose the government.  Opposition parties had the support of the church.  A new constitution was ratified on 9 December 1931.  It included many controversial articles, some of which were aimed at curbing the influence of the Catholic Church.  The constitution was reformist, liberal, and democratic in nature, and was welcomed by the Republican-Socialist coalition, but opposed by landowners, industrialists, the organised church, and army officers.  In opposing educational and religious reforms, Spanish Catholics were forced to oppose the government.  The press cricised government actions as barbaric, unjust, and corrupt.
The opening word ‘effective’ seemed ambiguous: does it mean that the three groups effectively comprised an opposition, or that the opposition comprised of the three groups was effective?  If the latter, how so?  I have omitted it here.
The final sentence seems unclear.  Was the press denouncing wealth re-distribution, the constitution, educational and religious reforms as barbaric, etc, or was there a separate set of actions being denounced, and if so, what were they?  Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk  02:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(I edited the passage from Background of the Spanish Civil War [although I did write that as well!]). "Effective opposition" meant that the actions of the three groups were effective at opposing the government. (The groups failing to mount significant opposition not being mentioned.) The corrupt etc. part is supposed to stand for what it says: things the government did were criticised by the press. That included, but it would be guesswork to suggest it was limited to, the things given in the paragraph. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  08:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
So, if I re-worded the above to start: 'Three groups led an effective parliamentary opposition ...', would you be happy with that paragraph wording?  Peter S Strempel | Talk  22:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The narrative in the third and fourth paragraphs caused me some difficulty, leading me to crib from other articles and sources to clarify the timeline.  This means you should probably pay extra attention to my wording to ensure I haven't undermined factuality.
I offer the following rewording:

In October 1931 Prime Minister Niceto Alcalá Zamora resigned to be succeeded by Manuel Azaña. Radical Party leader Alejandro Lerroux had wanted that job himself and became alienated, switching his party's support to the opposition.  This left Azaña dependent on the Socialists, but both the Socialists, who favoured reform, and the conservative right, who were against reform, were critical of the government. Socialists continued to support Azaña, but the left became fractured, driving the Socialists to the left while the right united into CEDA, tacitly embracing fascism.
On 1 October 1933, Socialist left leader Largo Cabellero spoke out against Lerroux's Republicans, suggesting the reform programme of the government, and thus the basis for the Republic itself, was under threat.  He warned that if the government itself were the threat, the Socialists would have to withdraw support for it. The following day another Socialist leader, Indalecio Prieto, declared that the Socialists would no longer participate in government, which precipitated its collapse. Alcalá Zamora, who had become President in 1931, now requested that Republican Martínez Barrio form a new government.  Socialist opposition on both constitutional and ideological grounds meant the PSOE withheld its support for the Barrio government, which was formed on 8 October, but called for fresh elections to be held on 19 November 1933.
The article says that President Zamora resigned in 1931.  But another article about Niceto Alcalá Zamora says he resigned as Prime Minister.  I have chosen Prime Minister in my re-write.
The fourth paragraph begins with a date, but without a year.  I have included 1933 as the appropriate year to avoid confusion with the events of October 1931.
I await your comments.  Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk  22:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Two small things in the bit above - I think "to be succeeded" sounds as if there were a plan, would "resigned and was succeeded" be better? Also the clause structure doesn't make it clear who "tacitly embraced fascism". (The "President" used should be "Prime Minister" for consistency – Prime Minister of Spain is a possible link somewhere.)
Until this election, Spain had only a "President of the Government", who fulfils the role of a Prime Minister in most other jurisdictions and is thus known as such; after the election, Zamora became a new sort of "President" as head of state. "Prime Minister" is better, I think.
Don't worry about coming back here if you think of a way to sort the couple of niggles I've written above, edit them straight in. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  09:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

All paragraphs in the background section have now been edited by me as indicated above.  While I edited carefully and proofread the finished section a couple of times, I think it could do with a once-over from you, Grandiose.  Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spanish general election, 1933/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk • contribs • count) 10:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I like what I'm seeing
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
in the first sentence it is missing an "on" so to read "were held on 19 November 1933"; also the next paragraph should read "The right formed an electoral coalition; shouldn't "Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas" be italicized, like it is later, because it is in another language? shouldn't "Asociación Católica de Propagandistas" have an English translation? shouldn't "Confederación Nacional del Trabajo" also have an English translation ("National Confederation of Labour")? what does PSOE stand for (so what is "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party" in Spanish?; couldn't "A second round of voting was held in sixteen constituencies.[20] This was held on 3 December.[21]" be changed to "A second round of voting was held in sixteen constituencies on 3 December.[20][21]"? to avoid short sentences?
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
good
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
good
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
good
C. No original research: 
good
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
good
B. Focused: 
good
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
good
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
good
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
good
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
any chance of uploading an image of Alejandro Lerroux?
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
yeah, it was the prose that got me; you got a week to fix this
Fixed all those things, I think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  10:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright then, it's a pass-SCB '92 (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)