Talk:Royal question/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this tonight or tomorrow. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on! I look forward to your comments. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll note thoughts as I read through. Will start with body and come back to lead at the end.

Background


 * Not sure we need to cap up "Constitution" and "Government" at every usage, but so long as it's consistent I won't make a big thing about it. I'd personally put them both lower-case. I don't mind either. "Constitution" should be cap'd since it refers to a specific document, but I agree government is less specific. Feel free to change if you'd prefer.
 * "This ambiguity would be at the heart of the Royal Question." needs an inline citation
 * "This was continued by his successors, although with little real success." needs an inline citation
 * Is "Commander in Chief" not usually hyphenated? "Commander-in-Chief"?
 * "The first king, King Leopold I" you could lose the second "King" here—"the first king, Leopold I" works just as well
 * "attempted to use its ambiguities to subtly increase his own powers" maybe briefly give one example of how
 * "King Leopold III came to the throne in 1934 after the death of his father, Albert I, in a mountaineering accident." how about "King Leopold III came to the throne in 1934 after his father, Albert I, died in a mountaineering accident."
 * "Belgian army" why not cap up and wikilink Belgian Army?
 * We are in UK English here, but we refer to World War I. The preferred phrasing in BrE is the First World War, I think, but again so long as consistent no big deal. - I prefer to keep it, even within BritEng since the main articles World War I and disambig pages take it.
 * "Leopold's reign was marked by economic crisis, in the wake of the Great Depression," can lose the comma in the middle here
 * "Leopold attempted to expand the powers of the monarch." again, perhaps briefly give an example of how.
 * Nice pic and the licensing looks okay to me.

German invasion and occupation


 * "headed immediately to Fort Breendonk" where in Belgium is this? what is Fort Breendonk? A modern military fortification or an old castle or what? (I know it's the former, but just making the point) - added "near Mechelen"
 * "the headquarters of the Belgian army, to take control of the army" repetition
 * Not sure we need to cap up "parliament"
 * "He refused to address the Belgian Parliament first," perhaps "beforehand"
 * "On 16 May, the Belgian government left Brussels" where'd they go? - not entirely sure...

Break
 * Pic fine
 * What were Hubert Pierlot, Paul-Henri Spaak, Henri Denis and Arthur Vanderpoorten ministers of? Which portfolios? Was anyone there alongside the King or was it just him on one side and the ministers on the other? I think his staff were there, but honestly not sure.
 * "to continue resistance to Germany" perhaps "and continue the fight against Germany from there"
 * "They instructed the King to join them" perhaps "urged", as it seems they couldn't outright tell him to do anything
 * Perhaps put "following the examples of Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg" into the previous sentence, between two emdashes: "the Belgian government was preparing to go into exile in France—following the examples of Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg—and continue the fight against Germany from there" I'm happy if you want to make that change yourself though?
 * "The King, however, rejected their arguments" don't need "however" here
 * "The ministers, meanwhile, suspected" don't need meanwhile
 * "On 27 May, Leopold negotiated the surrender of the Belgian armed forces to the Germans, and on 28 May the Belgian army surrendered." are these not basically the same? How about "Leopold negotiated a surrender with the Germans on 27 May, and had the Belgian armed forces stop fighting the next day" or something like that (with minor modifications in terminology)

Leopold during occupation


 * "Belgian civil servants were ordered to remain at their posts" by whom?
 * "in order to" don't need "in order"; "to" means exactly the same thing as "in order to"
 * don't need to cap up "State"
 * "Leopold was hailed as a "martyr" or symbol of national resilience" It's implied by the general populace, but perhaps make this clearer
 * "on 19 November 1940 Leopold succeeded in gaining an unproductive audience with him at Berchtesgaden." do the sources say anything about the meeting? Even if it was unproductive a sentence or so here about him meeting Hitler would add a lot of flavour to the article.
 * "Popular support for Leopold in Belgium declined sharply in December 1941 when news of Leopold's remarriage to Lilian Baels was made public" why? because of what's in the next sentence only, or other stuff too? Did they not like Lilian? Who was she?
 * "Modern view of the Royal Palace of Laeken where Leopold was imprisoned during the Occupation" don't need to cap up occupation
 * Pic fine
 * "The King's popularity, based on the belief that the King was sharing" second "The King" could be "he"
 * "On 7 June 1944, following D-Day, the King was deported to Germany." perhaps "On 7 June 1944, following the Allied Normandy landings, he was deported to Germany."

Regency


 * not sure about the licensing for this picture here. have another look - this should be resolved now.
 * "At the same time, a copy was also presented" could lose the comma here and the word "also"
 * I would hyphenate "government-in-exile" - that's actually grammatically incorrect, I've been fighting a battle over this on various talk pages
 * "by Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden" add "the" here: "the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden"
 * "Subsequent changes to the Belgian Constitution shifted the "inability to reign" clause (formerly Article 82) to become Article 93" don't need "become". also, when were these "subsequent" changes?
 * "a meeting of both Chambers of Parliament was called" what were these chambers? Belgium's bicameral system is already mentioned above
 * "Further action on the Royal Question was prevented" wouldn't say it was "prevented", there were just more pressing issues. Perhaps "arrested" or something like that

Political recovery


 * the political parties' dual acronyms are French and Dutch, right? Perhaps put a footnote to explain (with a citation) that is correct, but I don't think it is appropriate.
 * "the political structure of the Belgian state has stabilised" had, not has=>
 * "Soon after the liberation of the King" perhaps "Soon after the King's liberation"
 * "In Belgium, political debate about the Royal Question continued and grew after the war and remained a polemic topic in popular press, notably in the Francophone newspaper Le Soir" perhaps add a comma after "war"
 * "At the general election of 1949," In or during, not at=>
 * pic is fine

Culmination of the crisis


 * would expand "scheduled for 12 March 1950" to "which was scheduled for 12 March 1950"
 * "The results of the referendum was indecisive" were, not was
 * British English is "per cent", not "percent" if you say so.
 * "the Leopoldist gained a minority" not Leopoldists?
 * "while a mere 42 percent voted for the restitution of the King in Wallonia" I'd make this a new sentence. Lose "while" and put a full stop, then "A mere 42 per cent"...
 * Is there a way of making clearer for foreigners where each of the places on the left is on the map on the right? I mean, I know more or less, but not exactly. I imagine others would do much worse. I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean on the map image?
 * map looks fine for licensing

Leopold's return


 * Looks fine

General strike and abdication


 * pic fine
 * "In 1949, the FGTB-ABVV had voted" you can lose "had"
 * "ten million Belgian francs" I think you can pipe this to just "francs". It's clear from context we mean Belgian ones. I'd agree on second usage, but I'd say that French francs would be the ones that would come to mind for the lay-reader
 * "According to modern historians," which? when is modern? is this a universally held opinion? I've come against this before. I mean only the one(s) cited, but with an inference that it is accepted by others too.
 * ""the smell of revolution was on the air" and a number of Walloon nationalists called for the immediate secession of Wallonia and the creation of a republic" perhaps ""the smell of revolution was on the air"—in Wallonia nationalists called for the immediate secession of a Walloon republic" - alternative rephrasing, I hope this is OK.
 * "in the coal mining centres in Hainaut" perhaps "in the coal mining centres of Hainault"
 * "Wallonia, Brussels, and, to a lesser extent, in Flanders" try "Wallonia, Brussels and, to a lesser extent, Flanders"
 * "and the situation became more violent" perhaps try "and the violence intensified"
 * "In the afternoon of 1 August," should be "In the afternoon on 1 August" if you say so.

Accession of Baudouin
 * pic fine
 * "Officially, Leopold abdicated on 16 July 1951." perhaps "Leopold formally abdicated on 16 July 1951; his son succeeded him the following day."
 * "an unknown individual" well, he himself knew. perhaps "an unidentified individual"
 * "Long Live the Republic!" (Vive la République!) I'd put this the other way around: "shouted "vive la république!" ("long live the republic!")"
 * "who had been of the key opponents Leopold's return" this isn't English Good catch

Aftermath
 * Perhaps give a couple words to describe who André Cools was. "the socialist politican André Cools" or something.
 * "An enquiry by historians Rudy Van Doorslaer and Etienne Verhoeyen named a culprit." and it was?! And when was this investigation? Alas, I can't access the original text. It's not someone hugely significant historically though.
 * "A final report, commissioned by the Belgian government, was submitted in 2015." And??? Ditto.
 * We've used the word "culprit" a few times, maybe mix it up a bit.

Lead


 * "which lasted between 1945 and 1951 but which came to a head between March and August 1950" perhaps "which lasted from 1945 to 1951, coming to head between March and August 1950"
 * "Head of State" don't need to cap up
 * "Belgian Army" I would cap up
 * "government-in-exile" I'd hyphenate see previous incidence.
 * "he was deported by the Nazis to Germany" perhaps "he was deported to Germany by the Nazis"
 * "still under captivity" not "still in captivity"?
 * not sure you need to wikilink Switzerland or Belgium (both here and in body) per WP:OVERLINK I'm not sure why we assume a knowledge of where Belgium/Switzerland are on the part of our readers and that's pretty fundamental to their understanding. I'd agree if it was a less fundamental term.
 * "The result was a narrow victory for the Leopoldists but produced a strong regional divide" perhaps "The result, a narrow victory for the Leopoldists, produced a strong regional divide"
 * Both here in the body we refer to "four workers" being shot dead. seems rather vague. what kind of workers? The point is that they were proletarians in the Marxist sense (and Communists activists)
 * "With the situation fast deteriorating, Leopold announced on 1 August his intention to resign. After a transition period, Leopold officially abdicated in July 1951 in favour of Baudouin." perhaps "With the situation fast deteriorating, on 1 August 1950 Leopold announced his intention to resign. After a transition period, he formally abdicated in favour of Baudouin in July 1951."
 * Pic here needs a US tag too. Sorry but I'm not sure it's PD in the US because of URAA, it needs to have been PD in the US in 1996. I've culled it, it's not important to understanding the article.

Most comments now addressed. Thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria A very nice read. Well done. I enjoyed it and learned a lot.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:
 * See comments above
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * See comments above
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * Mostly, but not quite. See comments above in background section
 * C. No original research:
 * D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Assuming good faith here.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * Covers the whole affair very well. Engaging and well structured.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Saw no issues. Seemed neutrally presented to me.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * I see no issues here.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Mostly fine. See comments above
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks again for the great read. I enjoyed it very much. I hope the comments above help and I fully expect to be promoting this in due time. I look forward to seeing this article develop further. Cheers and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  20:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Passing now: well done! But keep in mind the comment below, it is a good point. Cheers and thanks again for the good read and the quick response. All the best, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  20:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks again for the great read. I enjoyed it very much. I hope the comments above help and I fully expect to be promoting this in due time. I look forward to seeing this article develop further. Cheers and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  20:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Passing now: well done! But keep in mind the comment below, it is a good point. Cheers and thanks again for the good read and the quick response. All the best, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  20:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)