Talk:Karl Schädler/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting the review, will update it as I go through. Article looks pretty good, if a bit on the short side given that the external links add a lot more material that could be used (in German, unfortunately).

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	A few typos and clunky wordings here and there but I can fix these. Some sentences are more confusing, like He supported Pan-Germanism under Austrian leadership, due to the formation of a German state without them would have isolated Liechtenstein and threatened its independence. Does that mean "without Austria" or "without Liechtenstein"? Some other passages are not clear, like what the goals of the revolution were (as Aloys II appears to have stayed in power), how the three-person committee managed to maintain order in Liechtenstein, or later what his position of District Administrator entailed (assuming it is an executive position, it could also be added to the infobox). (Later comment: Much better, but could still be a bit more detailed, especially as these were important roles that are somewhat glossed over.) (Later later comment: Should be good now!)	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The lead is well-written and follows the MoS, but could be a bit bigger to match the article size. Rest of the article appears good. (Later comment: Please look at words to watch such as "leading" or "important" and try to rephrase them in more precise terms, and it should be good.) (Later later comment: "Leading" is only used to say he, well, led the movement, so it's fine, no other "words to watch" left.)	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Referencing is good, but looking at the sources shows a few discrepancies. The dates of his high school/university studies don't match. The source also gives Schädler as part of two other factions in the Frankfurt Assembly, rather than the one mentioned in the article. (Later comment: The source mentions a more vague Linken Zentrum rather than the Württemberger Hof, could be better to have a precise source?) (Later later comment: Fixed)	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Most information comes from a single encyclopedia, which isn't ideal but not a fail condition either. Every non-lead paragraph ends with a citation, with the exception of the sentence about the plaque (which, being next to its picture, isn't really likely to be challenged).	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research, again, everything appears to be sourced.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Earwig shows nothing, with the only matches being the German titles of the works mentioned. However, looking at a translation of the main source used, many paragraphs appear to be close paraphrasing (the #Early life and #Medical career sections, and also much of #Political career). (Later comment: Still too many close paraphrasing issues, paragraphs should be rewritten rather than having word replaced by synonyms.) (Later later comment: Close paraphrasing nearly gone except for the third paragraph of "Political career") (Later later comment: Appears to be good.)	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Skims a bit on the medical career (what was the role of "state physicist" in the principality?). Also doesn't actually go into what Schädler did as President of the Landtag, besides a vague "passing laws". Schädler's full name is mentioned nowhere in the article, despite being present on his doctoral degree. Also, it is said twice that he suffered from an "illness" from which he died, but this isn't elaborated on further. (Later later comment: There's likely more to say, but the state physicist career is still a bit discussed and I won't fail over this)	Pass
(b) (focused)	Doesn't go into unnecessary details beyond the political context needed.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Doesn't take sides in 19th-century Liechtenstein politics, all political claims are well-attributed.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit war or disagreement between editors to be seen.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	First two images are contemporary works now in the public domain, third is the uploader's own photograph tagged as CC BY-SA 4.0.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Infobox image doesn't have a caption, it could be good to mention when it was taken. Third image cuts into the references section, is there a better way to place it? (Later comment: Turns out there isn't really a better way to place it. The first infobox image was changed, but the metadata wasn't updated (despite it being a clearly separate image taken at a later period) and there is still no good information for a caption.) (Later later comment: The image might not be of him, the country's legislature has been contacted for further verification. It could be better to remove the image until you can get an answer on this.) (Final comment: As the image is used by the Landtäg, it can be safely assumed to be him.)	Pass

Result

Result

Notes

Pass

Please fix all the close paraphrasing issues ASAP and rewrite the sections you translated from the encyclopedia in your own words. I would ask for the opinion of a German speaker to see if the sources mentioned in #External links can add further information to the article. (Later later comment: Much better, a tiny bit of close paraphrasing left to rephrase and it should pass. Coverage isn't perfect everywhere, but still broad enough for GA.) (Final comment: Looks good, asking for a quick second opinion to be sure as it is my first review, but I think it should pass)

Discussion

• Updated the review in light of recent improvements. The close paraphrasing remains the biggest issue to be fixed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Should be fixed now, @Chaotic Enby. TheBritinator (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)