Talk:Renovating Action Party

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Flag of the Renovating Action Party

• ... that a Salvadoran bishop threatened to excommunicate Catholics who campaigned for the Renovating Action Party (flag pictured)?

• Source: Wells, Henry, ed. (1967). El Salvador Election Factbook, March 5, 1967. Institute for the Comparative Study of Political Systems. p. 17.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Steve Potter (American football)

Created by PizzaKing13 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 36 past nominations.

PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 16:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC).

• New enough and long enough. QPQ present. No textual issues. Hook fact checks out. I don't see anything to hold this one up. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Renovating Action Party/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 02:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk · contribs) 00:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hola de nuevo, compañero. Me, yet again. I like studying political parties, so I might as well review this. I'll begin my review shortly. ‐ ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Images

One image, namely the party flag. No issues with the licensing.

Sources

Four sources, all books, one of which I actually recommended for usage on another page by this user. Nothing problematic here.

Prose, grammar, etc.

Lead

• A question about the infobox. Under the ideology area, you have "Classical liberalism; Reformism; Communism (after 1964, alleged)". According to the lead and the history section, the party did have members who were communists, so would it be fair to instead have it as "Classical liberalism; Reformism; Faction: Communism (after 1964)"? Obviously, the party itself was not communist per their platforms, but some members after 1964 were communists.

• Changed

• I suggest that you describe the party as left-wing in the first sentence.

• Added

• For the lead, are the exact years of operation of the 1980s revival known?

• I couldn't find anything

• "After the fall of PRUD and the rise of..." I suggest that you link 1960 Salvadoran coup d'état here.

• Linked

History

• Per the electoral history section, PAR did not conteste the 1945 Salvadoran presidential election. If a source mentions this, I suggest that you include that in the early years subsection.

• Ruddle doesn't say PAR didn't participate but the party isn't in the election results, which logically means it didn't participate. So idk what the motive for not participating was since PAR definitely did exist in 1945.

• "Menéndez was the party's presidential candidate during the 1950 general election." Did he have a running mate?

• Presumably but idk who

• "Menéndez came in second place behind Lieutenant Colonel Óscar Osorio of the Revolutionary Party of Democratic Unification (PRUD)..." If you can find a way to work it in organically, you should probably mention that the PRUD was "the official party of the military rulers" as is stated on the party's page and/or mention that the country was under military rule/dictatorship at the time.

• Mentioned

• It says that Menéndez alleged fraud. Is it known if he was correct? (My assumption is yes, given the military dictatorship, but that a source might not state this outright)

• The source just says that he claimed. Krennerich explicitly calls out fraud in the 1970s but not before that.

• "PAR did not participate in the 1954, 1956, or 1958 legislative elections." Is it known why? My assumption would be further boycotts.

• Also my assumption. Only the 1952 boycott is mentioned explicitly, and Krennerich verifies that PAR did not participate in 54 56 or 58.

• "PAR nominated Enrique Magaña Menéndez during the 1956 presidential election, but he boycotted the election after the Central Electoral Council (CEC) disqualified three other candidates. His name appeared on the ballot regardless and he finished in third place with 1.62 percent of the vote." You may wish to mention who won. Also, again, did he have a running mate?

• Mentioned; presumably yes but idk who

• "PAR won 6 seats in the 1964 legislative election, but it was surpassed by the PDC as the largest opposition force in El Salvador." If a source provides the numbers, I suggest that you state the percentage and/or number of seats that those parties won, particularly since you say later that they lost two seats in the next election.

• Added

• "Castillo finished in third place with 14.43 percent of the vote." Again, I suggest that you mention the winner.

• Added

Ideology and electoral history

• "Under the old line, the party retained its reformist policy but also called for evolutionary change." Is that supposed to say evolutionary or revolutionary?

• Evolutionary is correct, but I'll reword it to "gradual" so someone doesn't potentially fix a non-existent typo to "revolutionary"

• "The new line-controlled party faced frequent accusations of holding communist sympathies." Since you sort of already said this at the beginning of the paragraph, could you merge this sentence with that one?

• Done

• "A revived iteration of PAR existed during the 1980s... and finished in seventh place." Does this paragraph really belong in this section? I think it should probably be in the history section.

• Fixed. idk how this got put there

• On the topic of the 1980s iteration of PAR, is it known who revived it and if its ideology was particularly similar or different to the previous iteration under either line?

• Pretty much all I know about the 1980s PAR is that it existed and contested 3 elections

• Is it known if Molina had a running mate?

• Probably (idk who)

• If running mates exist and are available, I'd recommend putting them in the elections table.

• The only one I know for sure is 1967

Not sure if this is useful, but this described PAR and social democratic and discusses its voter base and what some of its members did afterwards. May or may not be useful for your purposes.

THanks for the source. I used it in the article.

Overall

@PizzaKing13: Not too many problems with this one. Once you address my comments, I should be able to pass it. ‐ ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@ThaddeusOrlando55: THanks for the review as always! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

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:

@PizzaKing13: Another high-quality article on Salvadoran political history. At this rate, the country will have the best articles of any Latin American country on English Wikipedia, singularly thanks to you lol. I shall be passing it. Felicidades. ‐ ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Infiltrated" by communists?

"Infiltrated" may be the wrong word for this situation. Saying "infiltrated" requires solid evidence that communist leaders were in command of a secret operation to get themselves or their members into the Renovating Action Party. If we don't show evidence that it was a planned secret operation, then all we can say is communists joined the party. It isn't unusual or suspicious when some of the members of a banned party decide to join a party that's still legal. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)