Talk:Zug massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 12:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk · contribs) 05:39, 3 January 2025 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Review

This page seems to pretty unstable and going through a lot of changes. I will put some comments on how to improve the article here and may pass it. But I think that, if there will be more significant additions, this article should be put on hold or failed and be re-nominated once it becomes more stable. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is just personal opinion. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @All Tomorrows No Yesterdays! I'm not experienced in GA reviews, but based on my reading of WP:GACR6 - just because the article is going through lots of changes doesn't necessarily mean it is unstable...? From what I see, that criteria is mostly directed towards if there is edit warring or disruptive editing. Although, as I stated before, I'm not experienced in the GA process, so please let me know if you disagree! Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it's true. That's why I stated "It's just my personal opinion." If you're not planning to make drastic edits then it's fine. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it when I had expanded it with every source I had access to and then I realized I had access to the Die Weltwoche sources, which I did not know at the time. Short of paying money this is all I have for now, expansion wise. But generally reasonable idea, though I do not foresee large expansion again within the time frame of this GA. Also to my understanding the stable criterion is generally not for this situation. Also, if you need a quote from a source to check it, feel free to ask. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Words like "a large margin" and "over a century" seem to be unclear and could be viewed as puffery or exaggeration. .Could they be clarified? All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Away from the computer but will handle this later today. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "a large margin" but I'm struggling to find any additional information on the massacre being the "first time a politician was killed in Switzerland in over a century". Three sources state make this claim, BBC News, New York Times and

The Economist. The Economist article reads: It was the first time for more than 100 years that any Swiss politician had been murdered

None of the articles say who the last murdered politician in Switzerland was but they only claim that it was over 100 years ago (a century). I did some quick Googling myself and it appears that this just simply isn't true as politicians Kazem Rajavi, Félix-Roland Moumié, Wilhelm Gustloff and Vatslav Vorovsky were all murdered post-1901.

However, I did notice that all of these politicians were not Swiss themselves and were only murdered whilst they were located within Switzerland, so the quotation from The Economist article be correct that it was first time in 100 years that a Swiss politician had been murdered. From what I can tell, in 1639, Jörg Jenatsch was the last Swiss politician to be murdered before the massacre however I can't find any mention of him in any sources related to the massacre. il5v (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Il5v FWIW the last time was in 1890, it was Ticino councilor Luigi Rossi (he's notable but enwiki has no article on him yet, though dewiki and itwiki do). I added that in a footnote - SWI swissinfo says it here. I don't think they were counting non-Swiss politicians as Switzerland was very international; probably should change to "the first time a Swiss politician was murdered in [...]". PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

changed that - that is what SWI said anyway PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A large margin could maybe be seen as an issue, but upon reflection I don't actually think that "in over a century" is an exaggeration, since specifying the last date in the lead is undue weight on a minor detail. The body specifies the last time was in 1890, which was 110 years - over a century is accurate, and it's not puffery. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still, maybe specify it like "since 1890". All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It feels WP:UNDUE to be so specific about that kind of thing in the lead. This is not on that, after all. If it's that important, sure, but I think it detracts from the focus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Since the 19th century". PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]