Talk:1939 Liechtenstein general election

Suggestions

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 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

GA Review

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.

---

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

@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)

Image review

• File:Landtag liechtenstein 1945-1970.svg Y – own work with an appropriate license – too simple for copyright. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Background

• 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)
• 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). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • prevent the VBDL from gaining any seats within the Landtag does not seem to be supported by the references. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • Rest of the paragraph looks good; AGFing on the book which I cannot access. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
  •  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)
  •  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)
  •  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)
• 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 HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  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..."? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think that is necessary. TheBritinator (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Added a tag to the burning swastikas bit. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Didn't actually see it mentioned there, so I removed it. TheBritinator (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • "The plan failed" – maybe "This plan failed" to make it clear we are talking about the swastika plan, not the coup? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Paragraph 5:
  • The last sentence should probably be split up a bit. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • 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? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  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"? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in the 1939 Liechtenstein general election, no actual voting took place?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bethwel Henry

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

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

• Will review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

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)