Talk:2007 Slovenian presidential election/GA1

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

I will be happy to review for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

Regarding Lead

 * Why do you have the detail about the referendum regarding insurance? That seems superfluous to the subject of the article.  Otherwise the lead is fine.  H1nkles (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Background

 * Quote, "The disagreements moved from issues of domestic politics in October 2006, when Drnovšek publicly criticised the treatment of the Strojans, a Roma family whose neighborhood had forced them to relocate, which in turn had subjected them to police supervision and limitation of movement." This sentence is poorly written.  It is a runon sentence.  You say the disagreements moved from issues of domestic politics, where did they move to?  What issues did the disputes revolve around other than domestic politics?
 * Quote, "After years of speculation about his health and intentions, Janez Drnovšek announced in February 2007 that he would not run for president again." This is a stub paragraph and should be combined or expanded.
 * There are quite a few little grammatical errors in this section. I fixed some of them but you should go through this section very carefully and look for missing words, punctuation etc.  H1nkles (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Requirements for candidacy
This subsection is fine. H1nkles (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Leading candidates

 * There are several very short/stub paragraphs in this section. I consider stub paragraphs to be ones with one or perhaps two sentences.  For example, "Early polls indicated that Peterle, who had been campaigning for months and had cultivated the image of a "man of the people", would win the election in a runoff against Türk or possibly Gaspari."  Please consider either expanding or combining them.
 * Pictures are good and the caption under each is very informative. H1nkles (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Other candidates
This section is fine, wikilinking spoof is a little odd but I can see rationale for doing it. H1nkles (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding First round campaign
I can't find much wrong with this section. It looks pretty good. H1nkles (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding First round results and reactions
This section is fine as well, I did some minor grammatical edits but otherwise it's ok and the map is great. H1nkles (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Runoff campaign

 * "The new strategy appeared to backfire, and the polls before the runoff predicted that Türk would win between 63% and over 70% of the vote." Another stub paragraph.  Please combine or expand.
 * Check the licensing of the photo in this section. It does not appear to be formatted correctly.  I'm not an expert on photo licensing so I may be incorrect.  Please review and either correct or respond here if I am mistaken.  H1nkles (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Final results and reactions

 * Quote, "The opposition parties said that talk of resignation just weeks before Slovenia took over European Union presidency presidency was irresponsible and unwise...." Presidency is stated twice, is there a reason?  H1nkles (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Detailed results
Table is good and sourced. H1nkles (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

 * Refs. 7, 10-12, and 15-16 need formatting with publisher, date, accessdate, author if available etc.
 * Refs. 23-24, and 37 need (in Slovene) tags.
 * Check spelling, grammar and prose in Ref 45, there are some issues in there (like a run on sentence). H1nkles (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall Review

 * This article is excellent!
 * There are only a couple of fixes that are preventing me from passing it as is:
 * You need to check the licensing on the photo of the ballot in the "Runoff Campaign" section.
 * You need to format some of your references a little better.
 * You should do a thorough copy edit to catch a few grammatical issues, I tried to fix as many as I saw but there were quite a few so it would be good to do another comb over the article.
 * Fix the stub paragraphs as well.
 * The rest of my suggestions are really to push the article further up. It is a very well-written article and could one day requalify as an FA.
 * I'll give you a week to consider the above suggestions and then I'll do a final review unless you need less or more time. Just let me know.  If you disagree with anything I've said here please respond and I'll be happy to consider your rationale.  H1nkles (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It will take me some time to go through all of them and I am a bit busy these days so maybe I'll need more than a week. I'll let you know when I'm done. Greetings. --Tone 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, this article is painfully close, if you can get the references fixed and look at the licensing of the photo those are the only two things that would kill it for me. The rest I can live with.  I'll check back next week.  H1nkles (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally I found some time to make the corrections you suggested. Those unformatted refs were added after my last detailed check but are fixed now. Licence of the photo is fine now. I found some more mistakes and fixed them, probably they are some more but hard to find. Regarding the referendum in the intro, it was on the same day and should be included somewhere in the article. I considered putting it in the second round section but somehow does not really fit... It is important, however. I have merged the stub paragraphs with previous paragraphs, in my opinion they could stand for themselves but if the general idea of having stub paragraphs is bad, this is probably the best solution. I think this is more or less all, remind me if I have forgotten anything. If passed as a GA, I will probably renominate it as a FA after some time, maybe I find some other things that can be improved. Thanks for your help. --Tone 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is great and I will pass it as GA with pleasure. To get it to FA you'll probably have to get some more citations in English if possible.  Well done and keep up the good work!!  H1nkles (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Tone 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)