Talk:Albert Schädler/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: TheBritinator (talk · contribs) 01:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: -sche (talk · contribs) 19:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observations about the lead and early life section: Regarding GA criterion 1 (writing) and 2 (verifiability), the lead and early life section are mostly well-written and supported by the references they cite, but there are some places I would suggest clarifying:

In the lead, where it says "political figure": is there a reason not to just say "politician"?

Done

I have copyedited the paragraph containing "Schädler was born on 24 December 1848 in Vaduz to the son of politician and later President of the Landtag of Liechtenstein Karl Schädler and his mother Katharina Walser" to clarify (per the cited ref) that Albert's parents were Karl + Katharina (as written, it could be read as saying his parents were Karl's son and mother).

Understood.

"In addition, from 1879 he conducted language studies in Paris, Lyon and London until 1887, where he learned to speak French and English.": this is probably a translation issue; by my reading, the source says he studied language in Paris and Lyon in 1879, and then in London in 1887, not that he was studying language continuously from 1879 until 1887; "conducted studies" also sounds odd to me, thought that may just be me. (AFAICT, it also technically only says he studied language in those places, and then separately later on in the Lexikon page says he spoke English and French, without explicitly saying that's where he learned to speak English and French, although that seems like a very reasonable inference.) Hewing closer to the source, what do you think of something like: "In addition, he studied language in Paris and Lyon in 1879, and in London in 1887, learning to speak French and English."

Done

The statement "he is widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in politics and healthcare in Liechtenstein's history" is cited to a (single but AFAICT high-quality) source which says "Er genoss als Arzt, Historiker und Politiker hohes Ansehen" (He enjoyed a high reputation as a doctor, historian and politician). The source also notes, as the Wikipedia article does, the medical things Liechtenstein called on him to assist with, and says he shaped Liechtenstein's politics for decades, which can be summarized as him being influential, but is it possible to clarify what (parts of the) sources support the statement that he is "widely regarded as one of the most influential" in the country's history? Alternatively, would rewriting it like "he was well regarded as a doctor and politician, and influenced the country's politics for decades" be closer to what the source supports?

Done

Is there a source for the pronunciation of the name, given as ˈʃɛdlɜ? (In standard German, I would expect ˈʃɛːdlɐ; if this is Liechtenstein German, I would love to see a source, to confirm /ɛ/ and coda /ɜ/.)

Done

I will review the other sections with regard to writing and verifiability next, and then will review criterion 3. -sche (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the Medical career section:

The first paragraph is well-written and supported by its sources, apart from the last sentence: For this purpose, he wrote a book focused on the field in 1886 and obtained the Federal Concordat Diploma in 1877. I would suggest rewriting this in chronological order: that he obtained a Swiss Concordat Diploma in 1877 (based on context and on what other Swiss Konkordats-things are, I gather this was some cross-cantonal qualification/certification, though evidently he was able to work as a doctor in those Swiss spas even before having it), and then wrote a book about the Ragaz-Pfäfers spas in 1886.

Done

(More to come.) -sche (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche: Thanks for the initial review. I have addressed the comments you have made. TheBritinator (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -sche (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the "Medical career and patronage" section looks good as far as writing and verifiability, apart from:

from 1873 to 1878 he was an editor for Liechtensteiner Wochenzeitung: The Lexikon says Rudolf was the editor (as well as the owner), while Albert wrote articles. Unless there are other sources, would it be more in line with the cited source to say Albert wrote for the Liechtensteiner Wochenzeitung?
Upon his brother Karl's death in 1907, Schädler and Rudolf inherited the Kurhaus Gaflei - a foundation in order to establish a school for housekeeping: as far as I can tell, the Kurhaus and the Stiftung for the housekeeping school were two separate entities.

(Will review other sections as time permits.) -sche (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheBritinator (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Later life and death" and "Personal life and family" sections look good (I have tweaked the wording a bit), apart from A plaque was set up in his honour. for which I have not spotted a reference. I will review the "Political career" section next. The article is well illustrated (GA criterion 6) and stable (5). It does stand out that the article is sourced almost entirely to one work, the Historisches Lexikon des Fürstentums Liechtenstein; this does not prevent GA status (I have seen other near-single-source articles pass), but I would be remiss not to notice it. -sche (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So anything else needing done? TheBritinator (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Political career" section is well-written and well-sourced.
Overall, the article meets GA criterion 1, apart possibly from the lead: I think the lead is adequate, but short; it could be expanded to mention more of the important things from the article body, like his working for a couple decades as a spa doctor in Switzerland, his ideas becoming the basis for one of the country's major political parties (the FBP), or his resigning in protest of the Beck coup.
Overall, the article will meet GA criterion 2 if the unsourced plaque sentence is sourced or removed, and one other issue is addressed: I notice Vogt is cited as a source (for the sentence about being a substitute in the 1886 Liechtenstein general election), but listed in "Further reading". My understanding is that works which are actually cited are not mere "Further reading", but belong in the "References" section. The easiest way to fix this is probably to create subsections in the References section for the ====Citations==== the <references> tag outputs vs the ====Work cited==== that is being cited in short form by those <ref> tags (Vogt; I suppose it's singular "Work cited" since it's just Vogt), like Free_skating#References.
The article meets GA criteria 3, 4, 5, and 6. Presuming that the fix to the references section is straightforward to implement, I will go ahead and request that a more experienced reviewer look over my review. -sche (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the unsourced statement. TheBritinator (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will jump in and have a look at the review as a more experienced reviewer. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the reviewer regarding the 1st criteria. Although the article is short, the lede should certainly be expanded. My recommendation is to add his accomplishments during his long political career. After all, the lede says that he influenced the country's politics for decades.

Although the reviewer did go over the 2nd criteria, I checked that not all information present in the infobox is cited in the text. This includes: time in office as the president of the Landtag, governors (von Imhof and Ritter are mentioned), predecessor, and successor. There also appears to be an error in the text. It says that "From 1882 to 1886 and again from 1890 to 1919 Schädler was the President of the Landtag of Liechtenstein", while in the infobox this corresponds to his time as a member of Landtag. The Oberland electoral district, which is also mentioned in the infobox, is also unsourced. This should be resolved.

The rest of the criteria has also been addressed and I agree with the reviewer. There is also no copyright violations in the article.
Once these issues are addressed, the article will be ready for GA. If you have any questions, please feel free to ping me here. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the lack of explicit mention in the article body of him being a member (not just president) from 1882 to 1886 and again from 1890 to 1919 is partly my own fault (apologies) and partly the sources' "fault": AFAICT the source only explicitly says he was president and chair of various committees during that time, and doesn't explicitly give dates for him being a member at all as far as I spotted; TheBritinator, do you know of sources that give the dates he was a member, is it indeed that same date range? (It did raise my eyebrows to think he would become Landtag president as soon as he became a Landtag member, but the source does say "1882–86 und 1890–1919 Landtagspräsident" and it's a small country where his father was the Landtag president from 1862–71.)
I now see/agree that the date ranges in the infobox here need to be sorted out (I presume it should list his two separate terms, 1882–86 and 1890–1919 — the current "January 1890 – December 1918" range for his presidency seems mistaken?), and the people [governors/successors/etc] need to be sourced; I'm glad you caught that, Vacant. @TheBritinator, as you likely already realize, the corresponding article on his predecessor-successor Wilhelm Schlegel has his dates ("1878–81 und 1886–90 Landtagspräsident") and could be cited for him preceding and succeeding Schädler at those times, and I presume you can find sources for the governors or remove them? -sche (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The governors can be find on their list and the successors are in the source that states his terms (and the list). The term does not directly sourced in the infobox. TheBritinator (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Governors, predecessors, and successors must be sourced in the text. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They should be. But if not, I'll double check. TheBritinator (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once the governors from the infobox are sourced (if there are no sources, remove them) and "From 1882 to 1886 and again from 1890 to 1919 Schädler was the President of the Landtag of Liechtenstein" gets fixed (the infobox says that he was a member of Landtag during this period), the article could be promoted to GA. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the issue with that line? TheBritinator (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox dates are different. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. TheBritinator (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@-sche: Feel free to promote the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you, for your work on the article and the review. I think it's almost ready to pass, but not quite: diff changed the article body from

From 1882 to 1886 and again from 1890 to 1919 Schädler was the President of the Landtag of Liechtenstein.

to

From 1882 to 1885 and again from 1890 to 1918 Schädler was the President of the Landtag of Liechtenstein.

to match the infobox. However, each of the two sources cited has the former dates: HL has 1882–86 und 1890–1919 Landtagspräsident, and Landtag.li has him being a member and Präsident [talk about jumping right to the top as soon as you join!] from Jan 1882 to Dec 1886 and again from Jan 1890 to Dec 1919.

AFAICT it is the (top two) infobox dates which are incorrect and need to be fixed to match the (former) body text (and the lower two infobox dates), rather than the other way around. -sche (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These changes are minor, so I corrected them myself. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Reading the article one more time, it is well-written (criterion 1), verifiable (2), it addresses the main aspects of the topic without getting off-topic (3), and it is neutral (4), stable (5), and illustrated (6). Good job, TheBritinator, writing a good article for an English-language audience about this interesting Liechtensteiner topic! And thank you, User:Vacant0, for helping with this review! I believe I have done everything outlined at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_4:_Finishing_the_review; if not, please let me know. (I notice the talk page still transcludes the whole text of this review, but presumably some bot will ... archive? ... that at some point.) -sche (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Much appreciated. TheBritinator (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche: I recommend installing the GANReviewTool script as it will help you a lot when closing the GA review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]