# Talk:Dolores Jiménez y Muro

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dolores Jiménez y Muro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416012225/http://qacontent.edomex.gob.mx/idc/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=134955&dDocName=DOLORES_JIM%C3%89NEZ_Y_MURO&allowInterrupt=1 to http://qacontent.edomex.gob.mx/idc/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=134955&dDocName=DOLORES_JIM%C3%89NEZ_Y_MURO&allowInterrupt=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The main source, the Aguascalientes government biography, records uncertainty about Jiménez's date of birth (1848 or 1850), but seems to prefer the latter, which gives her age at death as 75. This WP article seems to prefer the 1848 date, which is given in both the sidebar and lead, and lists her age as 77. Without any note about the uncertainty, the bio section however ends by saying she died aged 75 (citing the Aguascalientes source).
Shouldn't we either (1) acknowledge the uncertainty, or (2) be consistent in picking a date of birth, and (3) if we continue to prefer 1848, explicitly cite a stronger source for that? Gabrielbodard (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Just a heads up that I am planning on overhauling and improving this article as part of the ongoing ninth Women in Green edit-a-thon. My primary goals are to improve sourcing, organization, and prose and expand the article in preparation for a GA review. If you have an issue with this (or with any of my other edits), I am happy to discuss it here. I will be working in my sandbox, so feel free to check my progress there. There will probably be a very big edit coming tomorrow or in the next couple days. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dolores Jiménez y Muro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 14:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Hola. Seeing as I know Spanish, I think I can give this a more thorough source-checking than others. I'll begin reviewing this article shortly. I'm currently reviewing another article, but I expect that to be finished soon and it shouldn't take up took much of my time. I expect to finish my initial review of this within a maximum of three to four days. – ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do the review! Spookyaki (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)


### Images
For the infobox image, the source link is dead. Checking the archived page, I see the image, but I don't know where the date range comes from. Also, you need a tag for why the photo is public domain in Mexico.
Didn't upload that one, unfortunately. I can check with the uploader, though they seem to be in the process of stepping away from Wikipedia. Based on some cursory research, it seems like the INEHRM says photo was taken in 1910, though the Mexican Secretariat of Culture claims copyright. Not sure what to make of this, and while I think it's an worse portrait, I'd be alright replacing it in the infobox with the 1867 photo if necessary. Spookyaki (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd say leave it. If the 1910 date is correct, then the photo was created 115 years ago and the specific author is unknown, and that would make it PD in Mexico. Just add an archive link for the source and a PD-Mexico tag.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
No issues with the 1867 and Belem Prison photos
What is the source for the photo of the Zapatista army, and when was it taken?
Didn't upload this one either, so not sure what the source is. Uploader does not have an account. I think it's on Getty Images, who say that it was taken circa 1910. Also not sure what to make of this. You can make the call, if you'd like. I will say that this photo is used in a lot of articles about the Zapatistas on Wikipedia. Spookyaki (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
A conundrum. If/when you take this to featured article status this will probably be an issue, but I'll let it slide. I would say replace it if you can find of another image of the Zapatistas with proper sourcing, but I'm not mandating it.
Eh, there are plenty of pictures of the Zapatistas. I'll just go ahead and change it. Spookyaki (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)


### Sources
I can access Devereaux Ramírez, Aguascalientes.gob, Gual & Edgardo, Jaiven, López & Hernández, López Pérez 2014 & 2018, Mirandé & Enríquez, Rivera, Sánchez Amaro, Soberanes Fernández, and Valles Salas. All are reputable.
I cannot access Beezley, Buchenau, Hart, all of the articles from Stearns, Kirkwood, Luna Alvarado & Pérez Ortiz, Moreno, Pérez-Rayón Elizundia, Porter, Rappaport, Ross, Soto, and Villaneda. I shall assume good faith, and all appear to be by reputable historians and be from accredited publications and publishers.
The digital object identified for Rubio doesn't appear to be working.
That is the DOI listed by the journal, but you're right that it doesn't seem to be active. Should I keep or remove it, do you think? Spookyaki (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd keep it for now. It can be a future editor's headache.
A few times you cite several entries or chapters from the same book in different places. For instance, you cite Espejel López twice and Stearns thrice. I suggest you combine them via the harvc template.
I'm aware of the harvc template, but for chapters with different authors, I prefer to just cite them separately. Spookyaki (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
You cite two works by Oresta López Pérez (or three, assuming that Oresta López is the same person as the other two). This is fine, but the first time you cite her second surname as Perez and then the second time as Pérez. Although Pérez would be the proper Spanish spelling, I don't have a strong preference either way, just make the spelling consistent whichever way if it is the same person.
Generally, even if works were written by the same person, I prefer to cite them as they appear in the work. I think this got a little confused for this citation, though, since the metadata and the scan say different things. I decided to change it to just López, per the scan. Spookyaki (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I shall conduct a more thorough fact-checking of the sources during the prose review, but this is looking good so far. – ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)


### Prose, grammar, etc.
#### Lead
"Born in 1848 in Aguascalientes..." I think you can drop the year, as it's in the preceding sentence.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"She was tutored in English and French..." These languages don't seem to have been important to her career, so I would swap this beginning with something about her being privately tutored instead of formally schooled.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"After Porfirio Díaz became dictator of Mexico in 1876..." While there is widespread consensus that Díaz was a dictator, a pedantic reader might dispute when exactly this happened, as he came to power through a coup in 1876, but then resigned to stand in an election in 1877. You might want to be slightly more precise and say something like "After Porfirio Díaz became president of Mexico in 1876 and established a dictatorial regime, Jiménez grew concerned with the plight of Mexico's poor, becoming a schoolteacher and philanthropist." Not a mandatory change, but I thought I'd mention it.
No, I think that makes sense. Changed to After Porfirio Díaz became president of Mexico in 1876, establishing a dictatorial regime, Jiménez grew concerned with the plight of Mexico's poor... Spookyaki (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"During the Mexican Revolution, Jiménez participated in the Plot of Tacubaya, a conspiracy to arrest Díaz, writing a 15-point plan for the conspirators that called for labor and educational reforms, protections for Indigenous people, and a requirement that foreign companies operating in Mexico employ Mexican workers." Is the number of points in the plan vital information? Also, you should probably specify here that the Plot of Tacubaya failed, as someone ignorant of the history of the Mexican Revolution who doesn't read the body might think that was this plot that took down Díaz (I don't know why they'd be reading this article first, but I'm paranoid in that way). Also, link Indigenous peoples of Mexico.
I guess it's not strictly necessary to include the number of points. Also specified that it was a "failed conspiracy" and added the link. Spookyaki (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"Later, she joined the Liberation Army of the South led by Emiliano Zapata (also known as the Zapatistas)..." Suggest changing it to "Later, she joined Emiliano Zapata's Liberation Army of the South, also known as the Zapatistas..."
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"She also served in various positions in the Zapatista army, including as a military commander." I'd drop the "also".
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"She died in Mexico City on 15 October 1925." The year can be kept, but the date should probably be axed.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"She is considered by researchers such as Amalia Rivera and Oresta López Pérez to be an important but overlooked figure in the history of the revolution." I don't think you need to include the names of the historians in the lead. You could probably just say "several researchers" or "several historians".
So I included them because in a previous review, someone said that specific names should be included, even in the lead, per MOS:WEASEL. However, reading it now, MOS:WEASEL explicitly makes an exception for the lead, so I'm happy to change it. Spookyaki (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
My apologies for the slowness of my review. I have been busier than expected. I started drafting further work on this review, and then my computer updated and I lost it all, and now I need to rewrite it. I have the best luck. Hopefully I can speed up the pace of my review in the coming days.

No worries, and sorry to hear that. I am a bit out of it after getting my shots for the year, so might be a bit slow to respond to these points myself. Thanks for understanding! Spookyaki (talk)


#### Early life
On the subject of her birth, there appears to be some disagreement among the sources. López Pérez says 1848, Rivera says 1850. Aguascalientes.gob says 1850 but also that it could be 1848. All cite the same date, if not the same year.
Okay, different sources that give different dates:
Aguascalientes.gob: 1848 or 1850, unclear.
López Pérez: 1848.
Macías: 1848 (p. 26)
Rivera: 1850.
Rappaport: 1848 (p. 340)
Rocha Islas: 1848 (p. 211).
Soto: 1848 (p. 21).
This indicates a pretty clear preference in the literature for the 1848 date, with only one source clearly preferring the 1850 date. Do you think this needs to be indicated in the article somehow, or is it sufficient to go with the 1848 date citing only López Pérez (in my opinion, López Pérez and Rocha Islas are the strongest sources). Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
You may leave it as is.
"She had one sister and six other siblings." Checking López Pérez, she identifies one sibling, her sister Josefa, by name. She says she has six other "hermanos" that we don't know much about, although I'm unsure if she means "siblings" or "brothers" specifically. Unless you're going to give information on Josefa or why she's important, I'd just say that she had seven siblings.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
"The liberal Benito Juárez government briefly moved to San Luis Potosí during the French intervention, and San Luis Potosí was generally known for its liberal atmosphere. Jiménez grew up surrounded by liberal intellectuals." Somewhere in there, link liberalism in Mexico.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
López Pérez also says that Jesús Jiménez was a lawyer. That seems worthy of inclusion.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Similarly, López Pérez says that the aforementioned Don Jesús was a liberal, and, for his era, a feminist. I think that's also worthy of inclusion, given the other mentions of liberalism in her youth.
Made the following changes:
...to Jesús María Jiménez, a liberal lawyer...
She had no formal schooling, but her father, who supported women's education, hired tutors to teach her privately at home. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
"... being published in La Sombra de Zaragoza..." What is La Sombra de Zaragoza? A book? A journal? A poetry collection? A newspaper? López Pérez doesn't elaborate on this, but if you could find a source that does, I would include a brief description. Not a major issue, but I felt like bringing it up because I'm too inquisitive for my own good.
According to this article (p. 35), it's the "periódico oficial del estado", (I assume of San Luis Potosí), which I think makes it a newspaper, yes? Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that means it is the official state newspaper.
"She also wrote some lyric poetry, but was unsuccessful as a lyric poet." Unsuccessful in what way? Financially? Critically? López Pérez says that she wasn't a great lyric poet. I assume that is her own judgement.
It does say "al parecer no era muy exitosa cuando se salía del tema". I assumed this meant when she wrote lyric poetry (as opposed to civic poetry), but it's ultimately not entirely clear from the source. What do you think? Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Hm... It can be left as is. It's ultimately a minor point, and if the source doesn't elaborate then you don't need to.
No other notes on this section. – ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk)


#### Pre-Revolutionary radicalism
"In 1876, General Porfirio Díaz led a coup d'état against President Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada, installing himself as president of Mexico." Link President of Mexico, either before Lerdo de Tejada or at the end of the sentence.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
"Díaz's regime, which lasted for over three decades..." Link Porfiriato. You may want to refer to it by name, but I won't mandate that.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
"Under the Díaz regime, Jiménez became concerned with Mexico's poor." With or for?
Both, really. But I do think I meant "with": as in, Mexico's poor became a concern of hers. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
"... and during a trip to Ciudad Tula, Tamaulipas..." Link Tamaulipas.
I actually don't think I'm supposed to, per MOS:GEOLINK. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I checked and you are correct. That seems wrong to me, but I don't make the rules.
Yeah... It is a little weird to me as well. To make it look a little nicer at least, I made it one link: Ciudad Tula, Tamaulipas. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"She also wrote for La Sombra de Zaragoza and La Esmeralda (transl. 'The Emerald')." These are journals, yes? Or are they newspapers? Aguascalientes.gob says that she "colaboró en las publicaciones La Esmeralda y La Sombra de Zaragoza". "Publicación" usually means "journal" in Spanish.
See above about La Sombra de Zaragoza. Not sure about La Esmeralda. It's possible that it's related somehow to the La Esmeralda mine, where Juana Belén got her journalistic start, but that's just conjecture on my part. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
"In 1883, both of Jiménez's parents died, after which she started to look for ways to support herself." I suggest changing it to "... she looked for ways to support herself."
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
"She may have also founded an organization called The Commune, which advocated for women's rights and the right to strike." May have? You might want to elaborate on this slightly, as a reader as naggingly inquisitive as me might have questions about why this is dubious and isn't a certain fact.
Unsure myself. The source just says "...se dice que fundó La Comuna...", which to me seems to be casting some doubt on it. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Then no change is required.
"La Voz de Juárez (transl. 'The Voice of Juarez')..." Is this Juárez as in Benito Juárez, Ciudad Juárez, or something else from the voluminous list other things named after the president? Given the liberal inclinations of these publications and the fact that this was in Mexico City, I assume it would be in reference to the man and not something named after him, but the source doesn't say. I only ask because you previously linked Ahuizotl in El Hijo del Ahuizote. Again, sorry for my pedanticism, which is apparently a word.
I can't find any sources that discuss exactly what it's named for. It seems probable that it's named directly for Benito Juárez, but it's maybe possible that it could be named for Colonia Juárez or maybe even Juarez, Texas, since it was seemingly published, for at least some time, in Texas (though not in Juarez, from what I can tell). Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Then you don't need to link anything. If it was named after the president, he's linked in the first section, so it's not a problem.
"Many of her works were published under the pseudonyms Espartaco, which she used for political writing, and Anima, which she used for literary writing." Does the source indicate why she chose these aliases or if they mean anything in particular? If not, it's fine, I'm just asking out of my own curiosity.
It does not, unfortunately. This is all it says: Her writing spanned politics and literature, published under the pseudonyms "Espartaco" in her political writing and "Anima" in her literary work (ibid., p. 17).
The "ibid" is a citation for a book called La mujer y la revolucion by Mathilde Rodriguez Cabo, written in 1937. I do not have access to this source, but it's possible it goes into more detail. Not sure. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
"In 1907, she helped found a trade union federation called Mexican Socialism alongside Gutiérrez." "Various sources call this federation by other names. According to Valles Salas, it was Mexican Syndicalism. According to Rubio, it was called the Organization of Mexican Socialists." I think that you should provide the Spanish names here since you do it for other things.
Generally, per several previous reviews, I've been trying to cut down on including too many langx/parenthetical translations. For this article, I tried to only do it for a) literary titles and b) the names of organizations whose acronyms wouldn't make sense without seeing the original name. However, I can add the translations, if you think it's necessary. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Your reasoning makes sense. No change needed.


#### Mexican Revolution
"Fighting began on the appointed day in the state of Chihuahua, marking the beginning of the Mexican Revolution." Are days "appointed"? "Designated" or something similar might work better.
I think "appointed day" is a pretty standard phrasing of this. Like "the appointed day and hour". Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Then it is fine as is.
"On 11 September, this group protested in Mexico City against electoral fraud by the Díaz regime." Is this in reference to the 1910 presidential election and the declaration of Díaz as the winner over Madero? If so, you may want to elaborate on this if you can summarize it in a sentence or two.
Made a bunch of adjustments to the first paragraph of the section to hopefully further contextualize this. I can't find a lot of sources directly discussing fraud, but I think the supposed 98.98% percentage for Díaz kind of drives home what they were getting at. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"After rebel forces took Ciudad Juárez in the First Battle of Ciudad Juárez, Díaz and his vice president, Ramón Corral, resigned, and elections were called for October." Is it necessary to mention Corral? He isn't brought up elsewhere and you don't mention José María Pino Suárez in Madero's government.
Removed Corral. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"Elections were held on schedule, with Madero securing a decisive majority." Link 1911 Mexican general election.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"Madero's presidency ended on 9 February 1913..." Did it? He resigned on the 19th, per this source (pp. 153-154) and this one. You may wish to clarify that the coup started on the 9th and he resigned on the 19th.
Changed to just On 9 February 1913... Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"During this time, she wrote a letter to Aureliano Blanquet, the Secretary of War and Navy, discussing the origins of the revolution and suggesting that Huerta call a convention with the opposition to resolve their political differences. This convention eventually took place in Aguascalientes in 1914." Did the letter have any impact? Huerta and Blanquet were out of power by the time that the convention was held, so I'm not sure that it did. Either way, you should probably specify that Huerta was gone when the convention occurred because a layman might think that Huerta held it.
López Pérez seems to imply that she influenced the convention ("Dolores pudo ver hecha realidad la Convención de Aguascalientes, en la que, entre octubre y noviembre de ese mismo año, los grupos revolucionarios se sentaron a debatir sus proyectos"), but I guess she doesn't say so outright. Changed to A convention like the one Jiménez proposed eventually took place in Aguascalientes after Huerta's surrender in 1914. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
It's possible that she did. I was more concerned that the original paragraph might make it sound to an uninformed reader as if she suggested the idea to Blanquet and he told Huerta and Huerta decided "that's a good idea, I'll do that", when obviously he couldn't because he wasn't president when the convention happened. Your change satisfies that concern.
"This convention eventually took place in Aguascalientes in 1914." For the uniformed reader, what was the outcome?
I wonder if this is too much detail? My understanding of the significant things that came from the convention:
Eulalio Gutiérrez is selected as president.
Carranza withdraws from the convention and refuses to recognize him.
Obregón (who would need to be introduced) joins with Carranza.
Two factions emerge, with the Obregónistas and Carrancistas on one side and the Villistas and Zapatistas on the other.
I don't know if I can easily sum all that up in a way that doesn't stray too much from the topic. What do you think? Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The last point is what I meant. That although Jiménez proposed a convention for the sides "to resolve their political differences", this did not end tensions and the war continued until 1920. If you could include some variation of that I think it would be appropriate information.
Changed to A convention like the one Jiménez proposed eventually took place in Aguascalientes following Huerta's surrender in 1914, after which the revolutionary forces split into two main factions: the Constitutionists, represented by Carranza and Álvaro Obregón, and the Conventionists, represented by Zapata, Villa, and Eulalio Gutiérrez. Spookyaki (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"After Jiménez's release, she continued to participate in operations with the Zapatista army until Zapata's assassination in 1919." Did she stop involvement with them as soon as Zapata was assassinated? Or did she stick with them until their end around 1920? Also, for the reader's sake, you may wish to state who killed Zapata. As in, which faction. I don't know who specifically did it aside from Jesús Guajardo and potentially Rodolfo Sánchez Taboada, but that level of detail is unnecessary. Just something like, "... until Zapata's assassination by Carranza's forces in 1919".
The source just says: Now in her sixties, Jiménez collaborated with the Zapatistas and undertook missions for them until Zapata’s assassination in 1919, by which time she had been promoted to the rank of colonel in the Zapatista peasant guerrilla army.
I would say the timeline isn't entirely clear from that. As for the assassin... I tried to get some more detail on that, and it seems like Guajardo was working on Carrancista Pablo González Garza's behalf, but the impression I get was that he and his men were semi-independent actors. It's kind of complicated and connected to the ruse that ultimately got Zapata killed (that Guajardo was going to defect to the Zapatistas), but I think it's just simpler to say that he was assassinated by Guajardo. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that about sums up what happened, from what I remember reading a number of months ago. Just mentioning that it was Guajardo is fine.


#### Later life and death
"Between 1921 and 1925, she also worked as a rural teacher in accordance with the plans of the Secretary of Public Education, José Vasconcelos, who called for the education of the country's Indigenous population." Do we know where this teaching took place?
No, sadly, none of the sources say. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"She died in Mexico City on 15 October 1925 at 77." Do we know what she died of?
Same as above. Sadly, none of the sources say. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)


#### Views
"She published several translations of articles on feminist movements across the world, including in China and Korea." Did she publish articles in those countries or publish articles from those countries in Mexico? It's a bit unclear to me.
Changed to ...including those in in China and Korea. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"In the Plan of Ayala, Jiménez talks about history as an evolutionary process." Is it considered "talking" when done in written form?
Changed to "describes". Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"In her view, there are events in history, such as the writing of the Constitution of Mexico, that cause people to act heroically to enact great reforms." You link Mexico's current constitution, which raises a few questions. Firstly, that constitution was ratified in 1917, and the Plan of Ayala was written in 1911 and updated in 1914, so she could not possibly have been talking about that constitution. Secondly it was drafted by Carranza's faction, who the Zapatistas opposed. So, she either would have been referring to the 1824 Constitution or the 1857 Constitution. I'd assume she meant the latter given that the original Liberal Party drafted it, and it seems like that's the one she's talking about in the quotes included in López Pérez (2018).
Changed link. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)


#### Legacy
"Excerpt from "Fusiones" (transl. 'Fusion') by Dolores Jiménez y Muro" Would the title not translate to "Fusions" in English?
Fixed. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
"The book was set to be adapted into a movie... However, it was never filmed." Do we know why this fell through?
I don't believe so. The source just says "El guión de Revueltas nunca se llevó a la pantalla".
Then no change is required.
"She was the only woman included on the wall." Is this still the case? "Was" almost seems to imply that this has since changed.
Not sure, and I'm not sure how I would word it to be more clear. The source just says: El 7 de junio de 2011, en el 163 aniversario de su nacimiento, el nombre de Dolores apareció, por fin, en el recinto: la única mujer entre una multitud de nombres de varones que aparecen como destacados en la historia de San Luis Potosí.
So at the time of writing she was the only woman, but it's possible that other women's names have since been added. I honestly don't know enough about the wall. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
You could say "this made her the first woman on the wall", but I suppose that would also leave room for the same question to be raised. Hm. I would leave it, then.


### Other comments
In the section on Jiménez's involvement in the Mexican Revolution, it is mentioned that she joined the Mexican Liberal Party. This might be worth adding to the infobox. I'm also curious as to if/when her involvement with this party ended, although if that information is unavailable this request may be ignored.
Don't know if it ended. Did add that and her Zapatista involvement to the infobox, as well as her pseudonyms. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
You may wish to add this article to Category:Liberalism in Mexico and Category:Mexican schoolteachers.
Done. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
If you think she qualifies, you might also consider adding Category:Mexican anarchists.
Eh, I don't know. Of her political affiliations, that seems the weakest to me. She founded Mexican Socialism and was a member of the Liberal Party, but I don't know of any specific anarchist affiliations that she had. I think she was just influenced by anarchist thought. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. Given what I know of modern anarchists (which is probably wrong), I doubt that many of them would claim a filthy state-loving constitution-hugger like Jiménez.


### Overall
No ongoing edit wars.
Article is written from a neutral point of view.
All content is cited inline.
All sources are by credible authors from reputable publications.
Coverage is appropriately broad.
The categories are suitable.
This is overall a very well-researched and written article. I shall put the article on hold to allow you time to address my remaining comments, after which it should pass the GA criteria listed below. Fantastic to see this level of quality on a Mexico-related article. – ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@ThaddeusOrlando55: Thank you so much! It was really helpful having someone familiar with the Mexican Revolution doing the review, and I appreciate all the time you've put into it. I believe I've responded to all comments. Spookyaki (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
@Spookyaki: My pleasure. My apologies that the review took longer than the initially provided three-to-four days lol. I also took the liberty of adding some archive links for some of the sources, because I'm paranoid about these sorts of things. I left final comments, only one or two that you need to respond to. I shall begin working on assessing the GA criteria. – ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk)
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): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 
@Spookyaki: The article now meets the GA criteria and I shall pass it accordingly. Congratulations. – ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

... that Dolores Jiménez y Muro staged a hunger strike from prison while in her sixties?

ALT1: ... that Dolores Jiménez y Muro was named for both Our Lady of Sorrows and the city of Dolores Hidalgo, where the Cry of Dolores took place? Source: "Dolores had a name that pleased both her father and her mother: for Don Jesús—a staunch liberal—, she was named after the city of Dolores, where Father Hidalgo began the Mexican War of Independence; for her mother, Doña Atilana—a devout Catholic—, she was named after Our Lady of Sorrows." (López Pérez 2018, p. 124)
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/In Memory of Theo Faiss

Spookyaki (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC).

Overall:  Newly promoted to GA, long enough; Adequately sourced, neutral, plagiarism-free. I prefer the first hook, since it's more interesting and hookier. Both hooks are short enough, cited, and interesting. QPQ checks out. Nice work :) AmateurHi$torian (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)