Talk:January 1926 Liechtenstein general election/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: TheBritinator (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: PresentlySuraye3 (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Claiming this review to fulfill a QPQ, seems like an easy enough article. Will post comments soon. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Criteria 1

I've reviewed other Liechtenstein election articles that the nominator put for GA review, and the layout remains the same as those other articles. I don't see much difference between those articles, which passed GA, and this one here. Therefore I'll be passing Criteria 1.

Criteria 2

Off the bat, the article has no copyright violations and I see no proof of plagiarism. All sources are cited per the layout style guideline and consist of wholly reliable sources that are also used on other related articles. I was able to confirm Sources 3-7 and 9; however, I don't have access to Vogt 1987 or Nohlen & Stover 2010, so I can't confirm those. Please acquire these citations, or provide an accessible link to them, so that I can determine if there is anything about them that needs to be changed. Otherwise no issues here.

I started the article using the Nohlen & Stöver book (which I still have). However, it is not freely available (it was accessible via the Wikipedia Library but through Nomos, which is no longer part of it).

The Vogt citation was added by Migs005, so I'll let them respond on that source. Number 57 19:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I know @Toadspike has it (or at least did). TheBritinator (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I can get 125 Jahre Landtag tomorrow. I notice the citations to don't have page numbers, so I'll try to add those. @PresentlySuraye3, please send me an email (Special:EmailUser/Toadspike) so I can send you the scans. Toadspike [Talk] 08:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike Just sent an email to you, looking forward to seeing the scans. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Toadspike for sending the scan! I just took a look at it and everything looks good with that source. I will good faith Nohlen and Stover for the sake of this review, but I do have access to a physical copy so I might check it out soon. Either way the article looks good, so I'm going to go ahead and pass it! Good job once again @TheBritinator! PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Criteria 3

All of the available information about these elections appears to be covered by the sources with little to add otherwise. I find that all the sources cover the main points of the topic without going into any unnecessary details, so this Criteria passes for this article.

Criteria 4

Article covers all available information about the elections, remaining neutral and representing all viewpoints fairly. Criteria 4 passes.

Criteria 5

Article is stable from the time of nomination and during this review. No reason for this article not to meet Criteria 5.

Criteria 6

Article is illustrated with works uploaded by the author. One image is an electoral pamphlet from the time of the elections and is in the public domain, while the other two were made directly by the nominator. They are relevant and have appropriate descriptions, so this criteria passes.

@TheBritinator: Pinging nominator. This is a very short article so there's not really much to comment on in terms of not passing the GA criteria. Many apologies for the delay in getting to this review, once you address the remaining issues with confirming the sources I'm happy to pass the article. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Number 57 Would it be possible for you to help here? I don't have access to Nohlen & Stove and Vogt, but seeing as you were the ones who originally added them (I just converted the existing citations to sfn), would you be able to confirm them? Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.