Talk:Franc affair

Lead section reads like a story
The lead section reads like a story rather than a summary of the article. The purpose of the lead section is to inform the reader what the article is about, and sumarise it, not tell the story all over again. I added an "Improve Lead" tag because the lead section should explain that the counterfeit plot was not Windischgraetz idea, but appears to have been pitched to him by Juliusz Mészáros, originally. Also, the plot appears to have been hatched between 1923 and 1925, only after Windischgraetz came into contact with prominent German nationalists Erich Ludendorff and Adolf Hitler, not, as suggested, in 1922. I think the lead section needs to mention the German involvement from the beginning. While Windischgraetz might have hatched the plot in the Kingdom of Hungary, the early encouragement of Ludendorff and Hitler is significant information that should be mentioned in the lead. Also, I think some mention needs to be made about the overall political situation in the "Kingdom of Hungary", too, as well as the consequences of the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the impact of war reparations at the end of World War I, and general political confusion of the times, to set the plot in its proper context. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Franc affair assessment

 * ''Copied from my talk page.- Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

In what way does the Franc affair article fail coverage and accuracy as well as referencing?--Catlemur (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't check those aspects of the article, so haven't assessed them yet. I couldn't get past the lead without deciding it needs improving. The lead does not seem to be an appropriate summary of the article, in any case, so fails on both counts because while the lead section has no references, which is OK, it says something that appears inconsistent with the rest of the article, which is not OK. Please continue the discussion on the talk page. Get the lead right and I might change my mind. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You are probably right about the lede not as detailed as it should be in regards to German involvement. I disagree with the claim that the plot began in 1923. I believe it began when Windischgraetz accepted Mészáros' proposal. As evidenced by Imre Nádosy's involvement in it in 1922 and the sentence: "Teleki claimed that he became aware of the plot in 1922, but stopped being involved after receiving a report from Gerő which claimed the project was not viable." The Political developments in Hungary section covers the "political confusion of the times", although one might argue that it can be expanded further. In my humble opinion, the lede makes the article fail B2 (Coverage & accuracy) at worst. Since there are no statements within the article that are not referenced (by what I believe to be reliable sources) it does not fail B1 (Referencing & citations). Had it failed both B1 and B2 it should have been rated Start rather than C class.--Catlemur (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)