Talk:Freedom Party of Austria/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Großdeutschland is a disambiguation page, not sure how you want to resolve that. I found no obvious target. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Substantive review will be posted within 24 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The FPÖ existed as a third party with only modest support from its foundation until the mid 1980s when it came in government together with the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ), although it had been able to tolerate an SPÖ minority government already in 1970. Clumsy and ungrammatical.
 * It however also led the SPÖ to breake its cooperation with the party, and later, the adherents of a position closer to classical liberalism within the party broke with Haider and formed the now-marginalized party Liberal Forum (LiF). Clumsy, ungrammatical and incorrect spelling.
 * The government could continue still after the 2002 election, but increasing internal disagreements led Haider and other leading party members (including the FPÖ part of the government) in 2005 to defect from the FPÖ and form a new party, the Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ).  And again. Clearly failing criterion #1 "reasonably well written".  Please get this copy-edited by someone with a good command of plain English. The WP:Guild of copyeditors may be able to help.
 * I made a few further copy-edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Sources appear to be RS, well referenced, no evidence of OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Appears to satisfy the criteria
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * It would seem that File:There goes the neighborhood.jpg and File:FPÖ Anti-EU Poster, Vienna March 2006.jpg are potentila copyright violations.
 * Resolved these images have been deleted.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The main problem is the rather poor prose. The article should never have been nominated in this state.  It is the responsibility of the nominator to ensure that the article meets the good article criteria, before nomination. WP:GAN is not the place to start work on improvements to articles.  Can you get this thoroughly copy-edited in seven days?  If so, I will continue the review, otherwise it will fail this nominations. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok follwing copy-editing and deletion of two images, this article passes muster, I am happy to list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now completed a copyedit of the lead, which was indeed very poor. Please tell me if you think it's ok now, or if it should get more attention. I also removed the possible copyvio images. – Bellatores (t.) 13:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I will re-read the article thoroughly this evening. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there have been a few improvements but the same faults in the prose persist throughout, especially in the misuse of "was" for "were" and vice versa. The grammar is very poor. I think you may need to find someone else to copy-edit.
 * Ok, I have now requested help for a copyedit. – Bellatores (t.) 20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that one user now claimed it was more correct to don't specify size for the Jörg Haider image. I had it at 160px before, and honestly think the new size is inappropriately large. – Bellatores (t.) 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It probably would be better a little smaller, especially for those reading on a small screen. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that one user now claimed it was more correct to don't specify size for the Jörg Haider image. I had it at 160px before, and honestly think the new size is inappropriately large. – Bellatores (t.) 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It probably would be better a little smaller, especially for those reading on a small screen. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a copy-edit is in progress, I will check again when it has been competed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Copy-edit's done; thanks for your patience (I was bogged down copy-editing another article). Wi2g 19:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Source please
I would like to see the source for "Ideologically the party is a direct descendant of the German national liberal camp, which dates back to the 1848 revolutions.". The FPÖ was founded as VdU, a group of former NSDAP-members in the early post-war era. Some Observers say, that the party was right-populist, Heribert Schiedel, Anton Pelinka and others describe the FPÖ as right-extremist. The FPÖ describes itself as a descendant of the national-liberal camp, but I could not find a independent source for this information. --20:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberaler Humanist (talk • contribs)
 * There is already an independent scholarly source for it. See the political background subsection under History. (If you are not familiar with Wikipedia, the lead sections usually don't require references if the same information is already referenced in the main text.) – Bellatores (t.) 22:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)