Talk:1939 Liechtenstein putsch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dionysius Miller (talk · contribs) 13:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Dionysius Miller. Your review means a lot. TheBritinator (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Initiative notification: Hello! I'm Dionysius Miller, I'll be initiating your good article nominee review! Over the course of today (2/12/2024) and tomorrow (2/13/2024) I'll be putting together your initial assessment. Most likely there'll be a short or medium list of things to fix up some for a pass. I look forward to working with you and hope for success.

Review 1.1

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.	With the minimal copyediting which I did this article more than meets the criteria. With more on your end would just be a cherry on top.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	MOS:CITELEAD & MOS:PARA are frequently a problem in the first review. For this article, they are followed. MOS is applied throughout.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	List of acceptable sources given which correlates well with the article's length.
	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).	Inline citations are given throughout where proper.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unless your name is Wilfried Marxer, you're all set.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	So far as I can tell through reading and using third-party services, there is no plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comprehensive enough to give a broad understanding of the event and both its origins and consequences.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Only a couple of minor deviations, but these are not trivia-related but interesting and short explanations for possibly less understood points.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	NPOV throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable, most frequent edits are minor.
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.	Both images are in the public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images are relevant and help with the identification of the topic and relevant parties. Both substantially add to the readability and style of the article. I might recommend including a map of Liechtenstein's location in Europe and/or the major locations' locations in Liechtenstein. Additionally might help to include images of mentioned buildings but then it could get cluttered.
	7. Overall assessment.	Admittedly, I am fairly hesitant to grant a GA on the first pass. But, this article is what I'd call spot on. I've seen longer articles be shot down for their short length, but I am strongly of the opinion that the GA criteria are such that the article ought to be notable enough for an article, well written enough for a GA, and just as long as it needs to be with minimal fluff and maximal coverage. This article covers what it ought to cover in a concise style and encyclopedic tone. Great job, you deserve a little green circle that has no value for all your time and effort.