Talk:Nástup/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 05:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I will complete the review in a day or two. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! (t · c) buidhe 09:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Should "Nástup faction" be "Nástup faction", as it is elsewhere in the prose?
  • Made it consistently non-italicized. The names of political factions are not usually italicized, and it would be odd to italicize "Nástup faction" but not "Nástupists".
• "Israeli historian Yetayashu Jelínek [de] described Nástup as offering "a sui generis brand of extreme rightist ideology" because it insisted on an independent (as opposed to pro-German) foreign policy," — This sentence is an exact copy of a sentence in "Content". Perhaps it could be summarized in a different manner?
  • Done

History

• Optional — But I would recommend using an image of one of the prominent people associated with the magazine here, with a caption focusing on their role. Since the article has just one image, I believe this would be a good addition.
  • Not done: I would add a photograph of Durcansky if such existed (since he was the founder), but for the other figures (given that there is not space enough for all), showing a picture of them would tend to create undue weight to their role in the paper.
• "Historian Sabine Witt" — Mention nationality before "historian" as it is done for Jelínek.
  • Unfortunately, I could not find any verifiable source for her nationality.
• "editor of the Slovak People's Party's main publication, Slovák" — "Slovák" could be linked as Slovák.
  • Done
• "forcing the organizers to allow Andrej Hlinka to speak." — Perhaps a little note explaining why he was not allowed to speak would work here. Something like "Andrej Hlinka to speak, who was previously..." will provide context.
  • Done
• "in which the Germans targeted the Nástup faction." — A brief note on why they did so would go well here, since they seemed to agree and disagree on specific topics.
  • Done
• A line or two on when and why it got discontinued in 1945 should be included.
  • Actually, that was a typo. It was discontinued in 1940, presumably because of the Salzburg affair, but no source supports this directly.

Content

• "It opposed support for Edvard Beneš in the 1935 Czechoslovak presidential election" — could it just be "It opposed Edvard Beneš in the 1935 Czechoslovak presidential election"?
  • Specifically, it opposed the idea that Slovak People's Party should support Benes. Clarified.
• "By 1939, the paper was quoting The Eternal Jew" — The film was released in 1940, so it should not be correct to use "by 1939", unless I am missing something.
  • Lorman must be mistaken about that. I replaced with something else from him
• "Nástup advocated for a racial definition for the Slovak nation" — Link "ethnonationalism" or introduce the word somewhere in the prose, since it is mentioned in the lead.
  • Done

Sources

• Optional — a few sources can be linked to Google Books for their title.

That should be all for now. It has been a good read and it should pass. Regards. — The Most Comfortable Chair 07:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review! Much appreciated. (t · c) buidhe 09:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Final

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is a short and well-written, and it meets the criteria. Thank you for another fine article on World War II! — The Most Comfortable Chair 10:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)