Talk:Angela Merkel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 10:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Llewee! Thanks for taking on this review, and for your helpful suggestions. I've addressed all the problems you pointed out so far. Thanks again for working on this nomination with me :) Actualcpscm (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again @Llewee, just a quick FYI that some stuff has come up and I might be a little busy in the coming days. I am by no means abandoning this nomination, and I will return to working on it within a few days at most. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok that's fine. Your getting through the review a lot quicker than I tend to. :)--Llewee (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Llewee Nevermind being busy, I had a surprising amount of time today. I think I'm done with the concerns and suggestions that are currently listed here, although the NPOV stuff could use a second set of eyes. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Part one
Hi, I have suggested some changes to improve the first part of the article up until the end of "1998–2000: General Secretary of the CDU". Please use the ✅ template or strikethrough to indicate that a problem has been dealt with and add any comments/questions after the points. Thanks, Llewee (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Early years
✅ ✅ Found a replacement source, but I suggest leaving in the reference to the book with a missing page tag (as it is right now). ✅ great idea! ✅ ✅ As you mention, this is well-sourced even without that citation.
 * [14] As far as I can tell Newsecho.de seems to have been quite a obscure and short-lived website. Either add a publisher or change it for something else.
 * [15] needs a page number or replacement
 * "Her paternal grandfather, Ludwik Kasner, was a German policeman of Polish ethnicity, who had taken part in Poland's struggle for independence in the early 20th century." It appears based on the source that he was in a army supported by the allies in the First World War and probably fought against Germany. If you add a brief mention of that into the text then it could be a good hook to nominate to DYK (along with the image of her grandparents) when this review is done.
 * "in Quitzow [de] (a quarter of Perleberg in Brandenburg)", if you mean "quarter" in the sense of "area" then it may be a good idea to use a more precise term (e.g district, suburb or village).
 * [26] Encyclopedia Britannica isn't considered a great source to use (See WP:BRITANNICA). Replace if possible but in this case it would probably be safe to just take it out.

Education and Scientific Career
✅ I also rewrote parts of this to make it more readable. ✅MOS:ACRO1STUSE is relevant here. I think it's more well-known as Stasi, so the full name can be omitted. ✅ ✅
 * "At school Merkel learned to speak..." I think this paragraph probably fits better in the previous section. You could then change the title of this section to something like "University and Scientific career" or "Early adulthood"
 * "officers of the Ministry for State Security (Stasi)", their is no need to include both the full and shortened names here, use one or the other
 * [38] It would be better to use her profile (https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=24432527000) rather than search results.
 * Also [38] doesn't explicitly state that she was researcher so you might want to find a different source for that claim.

Early Political Career
✅ ✅ ✅ On a related note, I am not happy with the wording of this sentence: "She subsequently impressed de Maizière with her management of journalists investigating Schnur's role in the Stasi." I already re-wrote it, but please let me know if you have any suggestions for a clearer / more readable version. ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅; let me know if you think this is a fair representation. The Greens (which the SPD formed the 1998 government with) are usually described as centre-left. A quick check didn't yield any results on this. Since she was SecGen, I think her level of involvement is roughly clear, but if you think that more detail is needed, I can try to look into this.
 * "1989–1991: German reunification" change the second year to 1990
 * "The DA sank" change this to something more literal (e.g "The DA's support collapsed")
 * "Merkel was therefore appointed deputy spokesperson", "therefore" isn't needed
 * "backing of then-influential CDU minister" "then" is also fairly superfluous
 * "She has won re-election from this constituency (renamed, with slightly adjusted borders, Vorpommern-Rügen – Vorpommern-Greifswald I in 2003) at the seven federal elections held since then." tenses and wording need to be updated, also I think you need a more up to date source for this sentence as the two sources at the end of this paragraph are both from before the last elections she participated in 2017.
 * "ran for the leadership of the neighboring CDU in Brandenburg." Clarify where "neighbouring" is relative too.
 * It might good to add more information about what she did in these 1990s positions (bills she supported, her public image, ext).
 * "it resulted in Germany's first post-war left-wing government, led by the SPD." This section could do with a clarification, Their were other German governments led by the SPD why is this one described as left-wing while the others aren't.
 * "Merkel oversaw a string of CDU election victories in six out of seven state elections" how much was she involved in these elections?

Part two
Hi, well done dealing with the points for the first section of the article, below are some points covering the next part. Obviously same rules as previously. Thanks,--Llewee (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Early sections
✅. That's much better, thanks! I've commented out the paragraph in question until I get around to this. ✅, found a better source and amended the paragraph.
 * On the sentence you asked for advice on, I would say a better way of wording it might be "De Maizière was impressed with the way Merkel handled journalists investigating Schnur's role in the Stasi."
 * [68] is this a reliable source?

Early political career (part two)
✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅; funny enough, it was almost like the opposite of that. Really interesting story. ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * "2000–2018: Chairperson of the CDU" - I understand this name reflects the time period she was in the position for but it is slightly confusing given the section only covers the period before she became leader of the opposition.
 * "the CDU was not able to win in subsequent state elections" this reads a bit odd, change "was not able" to "did not"
 * "As early as February 2001," change "As early as" to "From", the reader has no reason to believe that February 2001 is especially early or late.
 * "her rival Friedrich Merz had made clear", I don't think "had" is needed here.
 * "She was subsequently outmaneuvered politically by CSU Leader Edmund Stoiber," It might be good to clarify what happened here
 * "He went on to squander a large lead in opinion polls", the word "squander" comes across as a moral judgement change it to something like "He went on to lose" or "In spite of".
 * "a razor-thin margin" I would change this to something less dramatic e.g "small margin"
 * "Merkel supported a substantial reform agenda for Germany's economic and social system" rather than linking to the page reform movement it may be more helpful to link the phrase "reform agenda" to the page Agenda 2010 on the relevant reforms.
 * "She advocated German labour law changes," a link to the page German labour law may be helpful here.
 * "Merkel won the CDU/CSU nomination as challenger to Chancellor Gerhard Schröder", change "as" to "to be"
 * "of the second votes to the SPD's 34.2%." It might be good to clarify what "second votes" means

Chancellor of Germany
✅ removed this paragraph entirely, it's unsourced here as well as in the article on stoiber (both the english and german version). coulnd't find any good sources and it doesn't seem particularly relevant here Since I reworked much of the text, which citation / part of the text is this referring to?
 * "severely undermined his position as a Merkel rival."  change "Merkel rival" to "rival of Merkel"
 * [89] doesn't cite most of the text before it
 * ✅, since the section was rewritten almost entirely. It's now in much better shape, and this sourcing issue is no longer a concern.

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ I think this raises an important general question for articles about politicians (an area of interest for me); in terms of their structure, should they separate History and Policy (like here), or should they be combined? I suggest we agree on a general approach for this article before I start moving stuff around. I don't mind the separation, but what do you think? Actualcpscm (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "The second Cabinet of Angela Merkel was sworn in on 28 October 2009." not clear why this is here
 * "2005–2009: First CDU–SPD grand coalition" This section focuses on the establishment of the government. It would be good to include more information on what she and her government did between 2005 and 2009. Did they achieve their promises? How did they respond to events (e.g the 2008 recession)?
 * Also, this section is a bit confused/repetitive and could do with a reorganisation generally.
 * "39 percent Seehofer (CSU), 35 percent Gabriel (SPD), 32 percent Schulz (SPD), 25 percent Özdemir (Greens), 20 percent Wagenknecht (Left Party), 15 percent Lindner (FDP), and just 10 percent Petry (AfD)" I don't think it necessary to list the figures for all these opposition politicians.
 * In general throughout this section their is a focus on elections and forming coalitions without much information on what happened in-between.
 * I take the view that a "political positions"  sections is for a politician's general policies and political views. Readers will expect their response to specific events to be in the main timeline of their career and specific positions will often interactive with their career. For instance in Ruth Davidson, a article on a far more minor politician I recently improved to good article status, the "Leadership of the Scottish Conservative Party" section includes subsections on the Scottish independence referendum and Brexit referendum as well as touching on her political positions when relevant. The "policies and views" section goes into more detail.--Llewee (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks. I'll work on that soon. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Actualcpscm (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Political positions
✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅, in a way. Since I rewrote these sentences, that would no longer be necessary. ✅ ✅, unless you think more is needed there (?) ✅ There might not be that much, I think she has largely received praised on an international level, but I'll investigate to make sure the section reflects reporting in a balanced way
 * "This has added to a growing debate within Germany on the levels of immigration, its effect on Germany and the degree to which Muslim immigrants have integrated into German society"- change to past tense
 * "2015 European migrant crisis", "2018 asylum government crisis", "COVID-19 pandemic", "Eurozone crisis" and "Succession", I'd suggest moving these section on events into the main section on her chancellorship.
 * " Merkel repeatedly highlighted a need for cooperation between EU member states," change "highlighted a need for" to "encouraged"
 * "She coined the phrase Wir schaffen das ("We'll manage this")..." I assume this was a reference to Germany specifically not the EU in general in which case this sentence may fit better at the end of the next paragraph where it might fit better.
 * "Seehofer estimated as many as 30 percent of asylum seekers" change "estimated" to "believed"
 * " for migrants with low chances to get asylum approved" change "to get" to "of getting approved for"
 * "The issues are in conflict" change to "The issue caused a conflict"
 * "the SPD who opposes them" change to past tense
 * "a reevaluation of German officials' stance", if this just means government ministers then say that
 * "There appeared to be a consensus among officials," according to who?
 * "Literature argued that the increased right-wing preferences" clarify what "Literature" refers to
 * "the European migrant crisis which has brought thousands of people, predominantly from Muslim countries to Germany," this repeating information already given
 * "A policy Seehofer announced is that he has a" change this to "Seehofer announced that he had a"
 * "who have already been deported" change "have" to "had"
 * "Seehofer backed down from a threat to bypass her in the disagreement over immigration policy" clarify how he was planning to bypass her
 * "and to negotiate bilateral agreements with the specific countries himself." maybe add a footnote clarifying why he had the power to do this
 * "established a crisis team to create containment policy." add an "a" before "containment"
 * "Eurozone Crisis" I would suggest expanding this section as from an outside perspective it was one of the most significant and controversial periods of her chancellorship
 * "Since then, this comparison has become a" change to "After this, the comparison became a"
 * "International status" I think this section could probably be balanced with a bit criticism.
 * ✅, see below.

Do you mean the "international status" subsection or the entire "political positions" section?
 * I would also say that some of the language used in this section can come across a bit non-neutral.
 * I mean the throughout the political positions section.
 * ✅, I think. I cut back on the praise a little and introduced some criticism into the "international status" section (now "legacy"). given the sheer volume of praise she has received, I would hesitate to add more criticism in that section, though (cf. WP:FALSEBALANCE). If you think there are still NPOV issues, could you point out a more specific problem area for me to look at? Actualcpscm (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, I think. I cut back on the praise a little and introduced some criticism into the "international status" section (now "legacy"). given the sheer volume of praise she has received, I would hesitate to add more criticism in that section, though (cf. WP:FALSEBALANCE). If you think there are still NPOV issues, could you point out a more specific problem area for me to look at? Actualcpscm (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Part three
Hi, this should be the final round of changes to the body of the article. I will do the lead after this is done and then it will be a couple of final checks away from passing.--Llewee (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll take care of these as soon as I can, thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Promise I‘m not abandoning this nom, just busy irl and with Wikibench on here. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Llewee! I'm finally done with these, at least pending your feedback. Let me know what you think, and thanks for understanding that it took a little longer. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've responded to a few of your comments below.--Llewee (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Llewee. Sorry to ping again; I've responded to your comments :) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Llewee Last requested changes have been made. I've gone over the lead for a minor copyedit, what else did you have in mind for it? :) Actualcpscm (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

✅ for the most part. I added sections on the important policy stuff, particularly climate and fiscal policy. So much of this would warrant its own article; "Climate policy of Angela Merkel" could easily be a standalone topic, for example. I'm not sure how in-depth you think this article should be. Even at high standards of completion, the article needs to be comfortable to navigate. I've seen it a hundred times and written almost a third of it, so my judgement of this is somewhat suboptimal. Do you think the article needs more on these topics? Have I missed anything important? Actualcpscm (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) ✅ There is an article on her public image; I don't think it's necessary to copy over much content from there. As I've said above, the Angela Merkel should probably not be expanded in places where it isn't necessary. ✅ ✅ ✅ Do you mean breaking up the section entirely? I agree that some content there is repeated from elsewhere, particularly re. NATO and Ukraine/Russia.
 * Apologies, this is probably something I should have flagged in the previous part but it is more obvious now the sections on events have been moved. The political positions section doesn't seem to have much discussion of her views on domestic policy. I'm aware that Germany is quite a decentralised country so it is possible that the central government doesn't do much in those areas. However, I'm sure you could add more coverage of her views on the economy, taxation, health, education, ext.
 * In terms of making the content more concise it may be a good idea to summaries the "Foreign Affairs" into a couple of paragraphs and move any content which isn't already there into "Foreign policy of the Angela Merkel government". It may be a good idea to move "fiscal policy" and "climate policy" into the policy positions section.--Llewee (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be more useful (and much clearer) to have the fiscal and climate policy info in the sections on their respective cabinets, partially because they changed a lot and are best considered in the context of a specific timeframe and government. Thoughts? Actualcpscm (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nevermind, we talked about this earlier. It's in that section now. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest splitting the "legacy" subsection into it's own section, combining it with comparisons and adding information on perceptions of her in Germany. You could then potentially change the name to something like "legacy and public image" split it into subsections if it gets to long.
 * I feel their needs to some discussion of attitudes to her in Germany.--Llewee (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of information on opinion polling in the sections on the governments she led. The article already mentions the "Mutti" nickname; I'm not sure what else you mean for this. Could you give me an example? Thanks :) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added some content on "Merkelkinder", i.e. how Merkel has shaped German politics. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, I suppose. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "termed the Putinian aggression"- change to something like "said that Putin's aggression was" or something similar
 * "Sciences Po", I know this is the article's name but I thing it would clearer to use the full name.
 * " Joachim Sauer, who has remained very private during and after Merkel's political career." the source for this is from 2009 so it may be good to find a more up to date one
 * The inclusion of a series policies in a "Controversies" section seems to cast a bit of a moral judgement. I would suggest moving the information here into the rest of the article and getting rid off any repetition.
 * Yes, I think so.
 * I'm not sure why that would be necessary; the section is very well-sourced, and I don't think there are significant issues of NPOV imbalance in the article. Merkel has experienced her fair share of controversies, not because she was particularly divisive (I personally don't think she was) but even just because she was in office for so long. If someone holds this kind of office for decades, that's to be expected imo. Is there anything specific you see an NPOV issue with? Actualcpscm (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, after double-checking, the content re Ukraine/Russia in that section is not repeated from elsewhere. I'm also not sure where it would be appropriate to move it to, and I don't think it should be removed. That paragraph in particular is exceedingly well-sourced, and outright removing it would violate NPOV, imo. We do need to report on her controversies somewhere in the article. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Its a question of personal taste really and I won't fail the review based on it. I just don't think that having a section called controversies is ideal because it comes across as if we are passing moral judgement on the sections content.--Llewee (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oooh, now I get it. Yeah, I'll find something better for that. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the section to "Criticism" and (re)moved irrelevant content. I think now that it reports only instances where Merkel was actually criticised, it's a lot better. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

✅ ✅, in a way. I removed this entirely; it's mentioned elsewhere already, and it probably doesn't belong in this section. The direct link between Merkel's migration policy (and criticism thereof) and these events is not present in the source and thus OR. ✅
 * "Muslims should deliberate on the question why so many violent people refer to the Quran" - change "deliberate on the question" to "consider"
 * change "Under her open-borders policy several women were murdered by the unchecked immigrants like the" to "Following her response to the migration crisis several women were murdered by migrants. For instance, the"
 * "On the British sketch-comedy Tracey Ullman's Show, comedian Tracey Ullman has parodied Merkel to international acclaim with German media dubbing her impersonation as the best spoof of Merkel in the world." - I think several sources are needed to evidence this broad a claim.

Part four
--Llewee (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead: The lead mentions health reform. This may be me missing something but I can't find any mention of this in the body of the article.

Copyright:
 * Text: I put the article through earwig. You can see the results here. The one with the most overlap seems to be a copy. The next one is quoted in the article. Others seem coincidental or include quotes used in the article.
 * Images: The copyright on all the images seems broadly fine.


 * You're right about healthcare reform, I added some content on that. As far as I can tell, there were two distinct rounds of reforms, so I've added them to the relevant time periods. If you think they'd be better in the "policy positions" section, I can move them there; however, the sources I found mainly analyse the positions of the government parties, not Merkel herself. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, it can stay as it is then. Thanks for sorting it out--Llewee (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: