Wikipedia:Peer review/Abraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy/archive1

Abraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy

This article is about a controversy that happened in 2019 in the Portuguese Wikipedia, where the Minister of Education of Brazil tried to remove controversial information from his article and made legal threats over it. I believe it would be very interesting to see this article getting to FA level, so I've opened this peer review to get opinions on what could be improved before an FAC. Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 07:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

• "protected the page against edits from inexperienced users" define inexperienced
  • The source mentions that users needed to have at least 10 edits and their account be at least 4 days old. This is autoconfirmed. However, I don't know if I can say "autoconfirmed" if the source doesn't mention it specifically. That being said, I've explained it in a footnote. I don't know if I could cite the protection itself.
• Twitter is linked twice under "background"
  • Fixed
• I don't think "(TJ-SP) is needed as the acronym is only used the one time.
  • Fixed
• "It also mentioned" what did?
  • Fixed
• May be worth linking to Weintraub's page similar to how Rodrigo Padula page is
  • If you refer to the {{ill}}-like link, it's because Padula doesn't have a page on enwiki while Weintraub does. {{ill}} wasn't used because Padula's page redirects here.
• "marked Weintraub's page as needing review" define what this means
  • "Needing review" is a template on the Portuguese Wikipedia which was placed here [1].

That's what I found Olliefant (she/her) 00:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: thank you! Responded. Skyshiftertalk 18:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I meant that needing review should be defined in the page. Otherwise it looks goood Olliefant (she/her) 18:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I understand, but I don't think I can define it further in the article; the template literally means "needing review", and it is what the source says. Skyshiftertalk 18:34, 1 April 2025 (UTCT

Tarlby

Heyo, I'll just be skimming the prose right now. Note that I'm not too experienced with FAC, so take this with a grain of salt.

• You can link Wikipedia administrators in the lead.
• You can link Wikipedia editors to Wikipedia community.
• Link Wikipedia administrator in "Background" like the lead.
• "Before and during the controversy, the article listed multiple controversies where the minister was involved..." ---> "By then, the article listed multiple controversies where the minister was involved..." For conciseness.
• You can probably link "progressive" and "conservative".
• "Chronus posted the email on the Portuguese Wikipedia forum on July 1..." The Portuguese Wikipedia forum or a Portuguese Wikipedia forum?
• "...asking other editors for help on how to proceed." ---> "...asking other editors for help on how to proceed."
• "However, after new vandalism edits, it was..." ---> "However, after further vandalism, it was..."
• "'This is serious, it is not republican, and it is unworthy of a position..." You can probably link republican.

Interesting article. Good luck with getting that brown star!

Consider reviewing my own peer review for FAC! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tarlby and @Skyshifter, I did most of the points here, except for the Portugese forum point. I linked the words "progressive", "conversative", and "republican" to their political ideologies and philosophies. This is optional, but I'd recommend captions for the Chronus video. Ping me for any concerns. Thanks! RFNirmala (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 01:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Query from Z1720

@Skyshifter: It has been over a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed and nominated at WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. I am closing it right now. Skyshiftertalk 01:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)