Talk:2022 Serbian constitutional referendum/GA1

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

Reviewer: Totalstgamer (talk · contribs) 15:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm presently reviewing the article

Below is a (partially unfinished) review. i will be looking into some of these points myself, since some of them are minor. i will not close this review until i finish going over them:

The Gist of it
I've yet to close the article, but i will be closing it once i make some revisions. the article includes some issues with phrasing and sourcing.
 * I've just finished copyediting the rest of the article. Take a look. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll do that right now! apologies for the lack of activity in the last couple days, i'll try and close this by the end of the week Totalstgamer (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you checked it? Vacant0 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you're going to continue the review. Vacant0 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am closing this as a pass. I believe the article meets good article criteria having re-read it. I don't believe there are any issues with the article, and that the issues previously in the article have been dealt with.Totalstgamer (talk)

By Requirement
According to the criteria presented in Reviewing good articles (hopefully the wikilink works)

Clearly Written / Good Prose
The Prose is Generally Well-Written, but could use some improvement. the requirement is almost met. the sections are appropriately divided, and the prose is full of wikilinks, without any spelling errors nor grammatical errors. however, some sentences could be rephrased to be more concise or otherwise to correct minor errors. present tense is occasionally used within the article to denote things that happened in the past ("The law on referendum and people's initiative, which has been on the waiting list since the implementation of the 2006 constitution", as opposed to "The law on referendum and people's initiative, which had been on the waiting list since the implementation of the 2006 constitution", or "but that due to the April general elections, the campaign for the constitutional changes will be restrained", which refers to a campaign that has already happened, and might need to be updated accordingly). there's also instances in which sentences can be shortened or otherwise rephrased ("Dačić called the referendum to be held", which might be missing the word "for"). Having gone over the article a second time a day after my initial read, i've found additional issues. some sentences have meanings that are difficult to discern. " The initial desire was initiated back in 2011.", for example. i'm not sure what this means, and the citation provided does not mention it either. other examples include - "shortly before the midnight, a group of activists from the "1 of 5 million" organization were legitimated after trying to enter the building of RIK" (the word legitimated should be replaced, midnight is a time and is usually not represented as a "the")
 * ✅ Fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

"...in order to discuss about the outcome..." (the words 'about' and 'the outcome' are a redundancy, discussing the outcome implies a discussion of all its aspects, while about usually implies something specific, which is not mentioned. the word about might need to be stricken) "The right to vote and to participate in a referendum in Serbia are held by citizens who, in accordance with the regulations on elections, have the right to vote and reside in a territory for which a referendum is being called, and are registered in the voter list." (the sentence repeats certain rights and does not necessarily communicate with clarity what is being said, especially in the second half) I'll go over the article again when i'm done writing the review and introduce alternative phrasings, but this isn't my field, and the article should be re-read by someone familiar with the subject.
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Factually Accurate / Without Copying / No Synthesis
The Article is almost well-cited, i think. I don't speak serbian, and so my ability to review the sources lies at the whims of google translate, but as far as i can tell, the article provides citations for most of its statements. as mentioned earlier, the 2011 statement isnt cited, and it appears that some text is directly copied from the google-translated versions of the articles (i removed the example i saw), which could use some copy-editing before the article is promoted. there is a vast vareity of sources, most of which do state the things the article says they state. for example, i chose 5 citations at random, and checked whether they say what the article claims they say, and they do. once again, i think someone more familiar with this subject (and preferrably serbian media and the serbian language) should also review the article, and that the article needs a thorough ce in some sections.

Broadly Covers the Topic/No Unnecessary Digressions
The Article does not go into tangents. It remains focused on the subject of the article and covers it in its entirety. i have nothing to add when it comes to this criteria.

Article is Neutral\NPOV
The Article is Neutral. it presents the facts as they are and does not seem to take sides or show bias.

Article is stable/complies with image use/free of copyright violations
The Article fits all of these criteria

Conclusion
Above in 'the gist of it' section.