Talk:Third Josef Hoop cabinet/GA1

GA Review

Passed. joeyquism (talk) 16:49, 20 June 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) 03:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I should complete the initial review today or tomorrow. joeyquism (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is alright. However, I would make the following changes (feel free to refuse with justification): Following the Anschluss of Austria in March 1938 Franz I named his nephew Franz Joseph his regent. - Comma after "1938" Done Though Hoop was supportive of the transfer he argued that the country should be fairly compensated for the loss of territory - Comma after "transfer" Done Starting from 1938, the cabinet was faced with the challenge of Swiss pressure to transfer the Ellhorn mountain to Switzerland. - I think you can omit "the challenge of Swiss" here. Done Also facing unofficial objections from Nazi Germany, Hoop was forced to end the negotiations with Switzerland. - Would this be better: "After facing further objections from Nazi German authorities..." I recognize that you may want to keep the word "unofficial" here somewhere, so feel free to revise or reject. Not done - I feel like the one I wrote reads better as I couldn't find who specifically objected, just that they did. Though there was the 1939 Liechtenstein general election it was not made public due to the country being under threat from Nazi Germany. - I feel as if this can be worded more clearly. Something like "The 1939 Liechtenstein general election was not made public..." would suffice here. I would also suggest conjoining this sentence with the one following it with a semicolon. Done Instead, the Progressive Citizen's Party and Patriotic Union used to it assign - I believe there is a typo with "used to it" - should be "used it to" Done ...in order to prevent the German National Movement in Liechtenstein (VBDL) from gaining any seats in the Landtag of Liechtenstein. - To me, double usage of Liechtenstein here is ostensibly tedious - but only without further context from you. I understand that this is the particular Landtag for Liechtenstein, but would it also be accurate to just say Landtag? You are more knowledgeable here than I am, so feel free to reject if this is a silly suggestion. Done The leaders were almost immediately arrested and the hoped-for German invasion failed to materialise. - Replace "hoped-for" with something like or synonymous with "desired" or "planned" Done In 1940, during a lecture in Stuttgart, Hoop showed respect for the German armies. - Not necessarily a prose concern, but is there a quote somewhere that could supplement this? Not done - I don't believe there is any quote for this, just that it happened. At the request of Franz Joseph II on 9 November 1944, the cabinet was dissolved and succeeded by the Fourth Josef Hoop cabinet. - Remove wikilink for Franz Joseph II, as he has been wikilinked and mentioned under this title previously in the text. See MOS:LINKONCE. Done Apologies for the pedantry. Of course, these are just suggestions, and the article is mostly well-written for how short it is.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See 1a; very minor MOS:LINKONCE violation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources look good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I did a spot check of those sources which I had access to (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 - i.e. everything except for the bibliography). All that I checked are appropriate, reliable/verifiable according to my assessment, and are accurately represented in the text, and all sentences appear with references to support their contents.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR that I can see here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio check returns a whopping 1.0% similarity. I do not speak German, but according to my rough machine translations of the sources, there is nothing resembling plagiarism or WP:CLOP (I should note that the sentence In 1940, during a lecture in Stuttgart, Hoop showed respect for the German armies is strikingly similar to the translation, but since there are very few ways that I can come up with to reword this without venturing into editorializing or original research, I will not probe further, though you should still consider my comments regarding this sentence in 1a). I am trusting in good faith for all other sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A little short, yes, but during the spot check, I was unable to find anything else that would be so vital as to warrant inclusion in the article. Breadth is fine for the topic at hand.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article discusses events that occured during the tenure of the cabinet, and does not veer into unrelated topics. Looks good.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Content is neutral and is free of biases.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Stellvertretender Ministerpräsident Alois Vogt.jpg and File:Anton Frommelt (cropped) (2).jpg have questionable public domain tags. For the first, it is noted that the author is unknown, so the same reasoning used in the photo of Hoop can be used here. As for the latter, I am not sure what applies here, as I am not a media licensing expert. I would suggest removing it for now and placing it back in once this is figured out, or substituting it for an image with an unknown author or a public domain tag. First image was taken in 1945 and has no attributed author, making it PD in in Liechtenstein since 2015. Second was taken by Adolf Buck, who died in 1952, making it PD since 2022. I'm not very sure what is questionable about that. Thank you for clarifying. joeyquism (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Looks good.
	7. Overall assessment.	@TheBritinator: For now, I will be placing this article on hold. There are just a few issues that need to be addressed, including a more thorough media review. I can care of any minor adjustments if requested. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to let me know by pinging me. Thank you for your hard work on this article! joeyquism (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism Hello, I have responded to the individual things you have pointed out. Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheBritinator - the article is looking good! Passing now. joeyquism (talk) 16:47, 20 June 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.