Jump to content

Talk:1939 Liechtenstein general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Suggestions

[edit]

I might review this, though I'd rather give a few suggestions first that can improve the article:

  • Split the Background section.
  • Explain the electoral system used in the election
  • Add anything that contributed to the elections under a "Campaign" section. I see that 1939 Liechtenstein putsch took place shortly before the election.
  • Add the aftermath of the election (who got elected, which political events occurred after the election, etc.) under an "Aftermath" section. Vacant0 (talkcontribs) 13:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no campaign, that was the point. The 1939 putsch is mentioned in a paragraph, but only so because the scheduled elections were a direct cause of it. TheBritinator (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1939 Liechtenstein general election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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. HouseBlaster (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, HouseBlaster (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 :) HouseBlaster (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, HouseBlaster (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). HouseBlaster (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 :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Background

[edit]
  • Paragraph 1: The first sentence On 31 March 1938...Franz Joseph II is a run-on sentence. But otherwise looks good! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2:
  • 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). HouseBlaster (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? HouseBlaster (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. HouseBlaster (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:
  • Paragraph 5:

Results

[edit]

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"? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary checklist

[edit]
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, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    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, 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

[edit]
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, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    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, 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. HouseBlaster (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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by TheBritinator (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 15 past nominations.

TheBritinator (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Always nice to see small countries like Liechtenstein get decent coverage. Article looks good as a newly-promoted GA. AGF on the hook source. Appears good to go! BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]