# Talk:1919 Salvadoran presidential election

This review is transcluded from Talk:1919 Salvadoran presidential election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 20:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 21:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Will start review in due time. Jon698 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: Due to the rather short length of the article, namely due to its being a fraudulent election, this will be a rather easy article to review. I will conduct a review of all of the article's references as there are only 23 in total. I have also added some alts to the two images in the body. Jon698 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@Jon698: Really, how could you tell the election was fraudulent?????? (sarcasm) The article is heavily reliant on Ching 1997, but I asked around the Wikimedia Discord and I was assured that the article should be fine for a GAN since its practically the only source of information I could find. Up to you tho. 🤷‍♂️ Also, thanks for the copyedit. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 20:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I made a series of copyedits starting here on 3 June 2025 at 17:32 to my last edit here on 3 June 2025 at 22:51.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
1. Page 364 of the Bulletin of the Pan American Union does state the term of the president  2. I do not have access to Volume I of the Nohlen source, but Volume II does state the universal manhood suffrage was passed in 1883.  3. The Diario Oficial source was initially a dead url, but I linked an archive version. Page 411 does cover their assumption of power.  4. The source by Erik Kristofer Ching is his PhD dissertation, which was approved, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that these are acceptable. Ching received his PhD from UC Santa Barbara and later published a book on El Salvador through the University of North Carolina Press. I am unable to read the full document, even though the Wikipedia Library, but there is nothing suspicious in the article or any reason to not assume good faith.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Article covers the events prior to the election, the activities of the people involved, and the aftermath.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
I can find no neutrality issues.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
There are no ongoing edit wars.
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): 
There are four images in total: two images depicting Jorge Meléndez and Pío Romero Bosque in the infobox and two images in the body depicting Carlos Meléndez and Arturo Araujo.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I can find nothing preventing this from becoming a GA. Articles for normal elections would have to feature a section for analysis, but that is not required here as it was a fraudulent election.
Thanks for the review! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)