Talk:2022 Serbian general election/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Images
Adabow (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Files from Medija centar Beograd (File:Miša Vacić.jpg, File:Biljana Stojković.jpg, File:Milica Djurdjevic-mc.rs (cropped) (cropped).jpg and File:Milos Jovanovic, Serbian politician (cropped).jpg) are tagged with Creative Commons 3.0 ShareAlike licences but I cannot see any evidence that files from Medija centar Beograd are under such a licence. (I don't understand Serbian so please let me know if it is located somewhere on the website).
 * ✅ Fixed and added the appropriate license that was issued by Medija centar. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Muftijin Amanet logo.svg is uploaded under a non-free licence but I think PD-textlogo may apply.
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Background

 * "A populist coalition led by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) came to power after the 2012 parliamentary election, along with the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS)" - a little unclear. I suggest 'A populist coalition, led by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and supported by the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), came to power after the 2012 parliamentary election'
 * ✅ I agree. Changed it. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "The assassination of Oliver Ivanović and an assault on Borko Stefanović" - suggest adding the roles of these individuals for context
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Vučić launched the "Future of Serbia" campaign in 2019" - The source doesn't expand on this much but it leaves me wondering what this campaign is/was (i.e. this a government works programme? An advertising campaign?)
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "it was agreed that the minimum number of collected signatories for minority ballot lists would be set to 5,000" - I know it's explained in a bit more detail in the electoral system section, but this sentence is very confusing for readers without prior knowledge of the Serbian system
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * " fees would be increased for members of polling stations" - suggest 'fees would be increased for polling station staff'
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "SNS declined to separate the election dates for the 2022 general election" - What would separating the dates mean? Holding the presidential and parliamentary elections on different dates?
 * ✅ Clarified. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "some non-governmental organizations, such as CRTA" - please spell out CRTA on the first mention (MOS:ACRO1STUSE)
 * ✅ CRTA is their common name though I've added the full name alongside the abbreviation. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Presidential candidates
Finished first pass of prose up to the Opinion polls section. Adabow (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "they either withdrew due to obstructions or they failed to collect enough signatures" - What is meant by obstructions? Perhaps simply 'they either withdrew or failed to collect enough signatures.'
 * ✅ Clarified. Yeah, they failed to collect enough signatures though the candidates themselves claimed that it was due to "obstructions". --Vacant0 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Results

 * "RIK announced that voting would be repeated at some stations" - Was there an official explanation for the repeated voting? The cited source explains the process, but not the cause of the repeated voting.
 * ✅ Added a source and clarified the reason behind this. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath

 * The second paragraph contains a lot of quotations from the PACE and OSCE reports. This isn't a major issue, but it might worth considering paraphrasing some of the reports' findings further for readability. It also is worth considering the minimal use criterion of non-free content WP:NFCCEG
 * ✅ I wasn't actually the one who added that paragraph, though I trimmed it and paraphrased it a bit. Hope it is good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

 * "Opposition parties also solidified their presence in the elections, such as the United for the Victory of Serbia (UZPS) coalition that received the greatest support amongst opposition parties in opinion polls." This is information which is not discussed in the body of the article. I suggest removing this sentence and add one or two sentences summarising the election issues.
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Summary
I will place the review on hold. The only thing that I feel doesn't meet the criteria is the lead section's discussion of UZPS in opinion polling MOS:INTRO. Otherwise, this is fantastic work. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Adabow (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing this article. I do actually have one question to ask you, should I move the debates to 2022 Serbian general election debates considering that this is section has the longest byte count? The table itself is large and I believe that it will trim the article size a bit. Vacant0 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll pass it now. Do you think there is enough material to split out the debates into a separate article? Examples I can think of like 2016 United States presidential debates have very independent significant coverage of the debates, whereas those with less coverage like 2019 United Kingdom general election integrate debates into the election article reasonably well. I don't have a strong opinion but WP:WHENSPLIT might help. Adabow (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Besides these debates that are in the article, I don't think so. I'll keep them in the article then. Vacant0 (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I changed a few instances of past perfect ("had stated") to simple past ("stated") for clarity and concision. It might be worth a second look at some of the instances I may have missed. There are also uses of both American (organized, criticized) and British (organise, recognised) spellings. I suggest picking one and sticking to it. The templates Use American English or Use British English may help.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * minor issue with one sentence of lead
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * While I am unfamiliar with Serbian media, all potentially controversial content appears to be supported by reliable sources. Spot checks of links turned no failed verifications.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * issues noted above have been resolved
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * issues noted above have been resolved
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: