Talk:1936 Spanish general election/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article and will make straightforward copyedits as I go (check edit summaries for reasoning). Correct me if I inadvertently change the meaning. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On 26 September 1935, the CEDA announced it would no longer support the RRP's minority government; it was replaced by a RRP cabinet, led by Lerroux once more, that included three members of the CEDA - why? Do the next few sentences refer to this or are they the aftermath?


 * ....the military purged of republicanism members... - "republican members"?


 * Lerroux's Radical government collapsed after two large scandals, including the Straperlo affair.  - "large" is a weird adjective to use here, and you mention one scandal and not the other - why not none or (better) both?


 * On point 1, it's context in so far as it's a description of the incumbent and how it got there, the relationship between the RRP (centrist, more or less) and the political right. The part about farm wages, etc. are notable legislation of the incumbent, giving some insight into how votes would be won. I'll clarify the join. Point 2, yes. Point 3: on the word "large" I will change it to "significant" as far the scandals themselves, well, all three books I have say it the same way: two scandals, one of which was the Straperlo affair. It just seems like one has gone down in history more than the other. I'm essentially defering the weighting to the books I have, which say it like that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, I'll pay that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The campaigning for the election was generally clean, with few problems, and peacefully; certain press restrictions were lifted. - setence flows oddly. "clean" is possibly a little colloquial and I was trying to think of a more formal adjective. Should it be "peaceful" or "orderly"?
 * Done that. I've also tried to address point 1, above. I'm afraid I'm going away tomorrow, and shan't be back before the close of the month. I'd like to think that there were few problems actually blocking the passing of the article, rather than what one would merely like. If this is the case, if you could make any small adjustments as required, or leave them if not necessary until after (hypothetically) the passing of the article, that would be great. I'll see to anything you manage to squeeze in tonight. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The elections of 1936 were narrowly won by the Popular Front, with vastly smaller resources the political right, who followed Nazi propaganda techniques - should there be a "than" after "resources"?

Strike that last one - obvious. Sorry about forgetting review.

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: