Talk:1939 Liechtenstein general election/GA1

GA Review

Passed. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: TheBritinator (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: HouseBlaster (talk · contribs) 21:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming this review; will start later tomorrow. This is my first "real" GA review which I will not be rubber-stamping, so please let me know if I need to change something. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster this review is finished? TheBritinator (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I should be done by Tuesday, but you are welcome to work through my comments so far. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also fine with you replying inline / crossing things out / doing whatever you need to do to best respond to the comments :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will start soon. TheBritinator (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster I have responded to your comments. TheBritinator (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! The only thing left is the image review for File:Hoop Vogt Schaedler Marxer 1938.jpg. Would you be able to investigate this? I think the image could be replaced with a collage if need be. (Or even removed entirely.) Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I didn't tag it with that. TheBritinator (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So c:Template:PD-old-expired is applicable when the image was published more than 95 years ago – i.e. before 1929. Unfortunately, this looks like the image is non-free. I suggest replacing it with a collage before promotion (per WP:GA?#6a). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will just remove it for now. TheBritinator (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBritinator: Congratulations! I will be passing this review. There is probably a really good WP:DYKAPRIL hook in here, if you are so inclined :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Landtag liechtenstein 1945-1970.svg Y – own work with an appropriate license – too simple for copyright. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hoop Vogt Schaedler Marxer 1938.jpg ? – the tag c:Template:PD-URAA indicates that the image had entered the public domain in Liechtenstein before 1 January 1996, which would mean it was published before 1926. I do not think this is in the PD in the US. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Paragraph 1: The first sentence On 31 March 1938...Franz Joseph II is a run-on sentence. But otherwise looks good! House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 2:
- First sentence does not seem to be supported by the citation. It does, however, seem to be supported by [1] (which is referenced after the next sentence). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- prevent the VBDL from gaining any seats within the Landtag does not seem to be supported by the references. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Rest of the paragraph looks good; AGFing on the book which I cannot access. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 3 (sourcing looks excellent, AGFing for the Nohlen citations):
- "A compromise for the coalition" – I think this is trying to say that a compromise in the coalition agreement was to introduce such legislation, but it took me several reads to get that from the sentence. If so, "A compromise in the coalition agreement" would be better (in my view). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- "Shortly after, Franz Joseph, in agreement with both parties" – do we have a date for this action? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Can we paraphrase the law rather than quoting it? I think that would flow more clearly and be more comprehensible. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- I feel like the last three sentences ("The elections were only used to distribute..." through "...the VBDL to be able to gain support" are a little unclear in general. Something like "Because an election would potentially allow the bad guys to gain power, they inserted a provision to prevent one [summary (see bullet point above) of how it the law made voting unnecessary]."
- I don't think that is necessary. TheBritinator (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 4:
- "planning to seize control of the government, which was hoped would cause clashes between them and the government" – I am guessing that should be "seize control of ~~the~~ government buildings"? You woulnd't want to fight the government you just seized control over House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- "...German invasion, though the invasion did not happen..." seems a little too important to be a part of a sentence. I would split this into its own sentence. Maybe something like "...German invasion. Ultimately, the invasion did not happen..."? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is necessary. TheBritinator (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a ‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} tag to the burning swastikas bit. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't actually see it mentioned there, so I removed it. TheBritinator (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "The plan failed" – maybe "This plan failed" to make it clear we are talking about the swastika plan, not the coup? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Paragraph 5:
- The last sentence should probably be split up a bit. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to expand a bit on what "made a subject via referendum" means? What would the referendum question be? That the election be thrown out? That there actually be a real election? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

Results

The tables both look fabulous. AGFing on the Vogt source. My only quibble would be that "...both the party and FBP now maintained..." is a little oxymoronic. Maybe "both the party and FBP now held"? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary checklist

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, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Final checklist

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, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

As I mentioned above, there is probably a really good WP:DYKAPRIL hook in here. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.