Talk:2023 Serbian election protests/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I remember following this on the news when it happened, so I'm more than happy to take this on for review. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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)." This is a bit confusing to read. I suggest it be rewritten as "Following the 2012 parliamentary election, a populist coalition led by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) rose to power." or something similar.
There is an 11 year time jump between the first and second sentences. This is very jarring to read. If you could fill in the gap with some context of what the SNS-led government did during these 11 years that can provide context for these protests, it would be very helpful.
There is an uncomfortable use of passive voice in saying "a school shooting occurred" and "a mass murder occurred". Be a bit more specific about what happened and use active voice.
Spotcheck:[3][4] Verified.
Link to the 2023 protests and elections inline, rather than dumping them at the top of the section under "Further information".
Why were people protesting? How does it relate to the government and/or election?
Spotcheck:[7] Verified.
"Amidst the protests," Think this could be cut for concision. The context is implicit.
Spotcheck:[8][9] Verified.
"The elections on 17 December were marked by electoral fraud, according to reports of those who monitored the elections, including CeSID, CRTA, and Kreni-Promeni organisations." We should lead with "According to [...]", as beginning the sentence with the allegations makes it read initially like it's in Wikivoice.
Spotcheck:[10][11][12] Verified.
"Among the irregularities reported by domestic and international observers were" Rewrite to "Domestic and international observers reported irregularities such as [...]"
Spotcheck:[10] Verified.
Spotcheck:[13] Verified.
"the government and the opposition neither won a majority" -> "neither the government nor the opposition won a majority".
Spotcheck:[14][15] Verified.
I'm not sure "hung parliament" is the correct term for a municipal council? It's a term specifically for Westminster-style legislatures.
Why do we specify the results of the Belgrade council elections but not the nationwide parliamentary election?
Spotcheck:[17] Verified.
"electoral fraud allegations" -> "allegations of electoral fraud"
Spotcheck:[11] Verified.
Spotcheck:[20] Verified.
Translations of Serbian language quotes aren't provided consistently. Per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, we should always be providing the originals when we are doing the translations ourselves.

First week

"At the protest, SPN announced that they would reject the Belgrade City Assembly election results, [...]" This is quite the long sentence and could be broken up. I suggest ending the sentence at "citing irregularities that took place during the election." and starting a new one with "They also demanded the annulment [...]"
Spotcheck:[22][23] First part of sentence is verified by first source, second part by second source. These should be moved inline with the specific information they're verifying.
"The protest was met with a few incidents;" Met with? This implies that what happened went against the protests, not that it was protestors doing it.
Spotcheck:[24][25][26] Verified.
"The second protest was also attended" Drop the "also".
"all of whom initiated ProGlas during the 2023 election campaign, to boost the turnout of the elections" This is a bit confusing. What was "ProGlas"?
Spotcheck:[27] Verified.
"began their hunger strike" -> "began a hunger strike" (in each case).
Spotcheck:[28] Verified.
Spotcheck:[29] Verified.
Spotcheck:[30] Verified.
"presided by" -> "presided over by"
Spotcheck:[33] Verified.
Spotcheck:[34] Verified.
"Temporary Council of Belgrade" What is this? It's not been mentioned before.
"The building was, however, armed inside with the police and gendarmery," Bit confusingly written. "However, the building was under armed guard by the police and gendarmery" or something similar would read better.
"and they tried to enter the building violently" This is written a bit euphemistically. How was their attempted entry of the building violent? Be specific. Otherwise, "they tried to force their way into the building" might read better.
"saying that it was" -> "describing it as"
Spotcheck:[38][39][40][41] Verified.
"Željko Vagić, the president of the Party of Freedom and Justice (SSP) board in the Belgrade municipality of Grocka," This is a very long descriptor and it breaks up the flow of the sentence. Figure out a way to condense it.
What did Šapić say at the press conference?
Spotcheck:[45][46] Verified, although the citations should be moved inline with the specific information being verified.
"informed" -> "reported"
Spotcheck:[48][49] Verified, although the citations should be moved inline with the specific information being verified.
"coercive means" Another euphemism, be more clear.
"admitted guilt" -> "pled guilty".
To what did they admit guilt? What specific charges?
Spotcheck:[51] Verified.
Spotcheck:[52] Source says it was a Suspended sentence.

Second week

Spotcheck:[53][54] Verified.
Spotcheck:[55][56] Verified, although the citations should be moved inline with the specific information being verified.
"It was noted that" Cut this, begin sentence with "While protesting".
Spotcheck:[58] Verified.
Spotcheck:[59] Verified.
What was the identity/affiliation of the attacker?
Spotcheck:[61][62] Verified.
"voter list" Link to Electoral roll.
Specify which Faculty of Philosophy.
"notably" Why is it notable?
Spotcheck:[70] Verified.
Spotcheck:[73][74] Verified.
Spotcheck:[75] Verified.
"SPN has only organised two protests since then" -> "SPN only organised two protests since then"
"respectively" Cut this.

Domestic reactions

Spotcheck:[79] Verified.
"and declined the claim that" Change "declined" to either "rejected" or "denied".
Spotcheck:[81] Verified.
"Tomislav Nikolić's hunger strike in 2011" What does this have to do with the 2023 protest? It's very confusing to see it raised here without any context.
"Amidst" -> "During"
Spotcheck:[84] Verified.
Spotcheck:[87] Verified.
Spotcheck:[88] Verified.
Spotcheck:[89] Verified.
"expressed their support for rejecting" -> "rejected"

Foreign reactions

Spotcheck:[92][93] Verified.
There's more translated quotes here with originals not provided.
Spotcheck:[96] Verified.
Spotcheck:[97] Verified.
Spotcheck:[98] Verified.
Spotcheck:[99] Verified.
Spotcheck:[100] Verified.
Spotcheck:[101] Verified.
Spotcheck:[102] Verified.
Do we have any English language sources for the comments from the EU and US?

Aftermath

Again, are there any English language sources for the European Parliament debate?
"The resolution called for" This is another very long sentence that should be broken up for clarity.
"does not" -> "did not"
"should get suspended" -> "should be suspended"
ODIHR quote is quite long and uses fluffy language, could we paraphrase into something more clear and concise?
"occurred on 19 February, but it failed" Start a new sentence with "But it failed"
"considering that" -> "as"
"Considering that" -> "as"
Spotcheck:[108] Verified.
Spotcheck:[109] Verified.
"proved to be a loss" -> "were a loss".
Spotcheck:[116] Verified.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
There's quite a few grammatical and prose issues throughout the text, much of which does not currently meet the standards for clarity or concision. This can be fixed by following some of the above comments.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
~~MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE is not followed consistently.~~
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References are all properly presented.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Sources appear to all be reliable and come from legitimate publications. In some cases, the citations could be moved closer inline with specific information rather than bundling at the end of long sentences.

C. It contains no original research:
No OR as far as I could see. All spotchecks were either verified, or had only minor differences.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No Copyvio or plagiarism issues as far as I could see. Earwig only flags clearly attributed quotes.[1]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
~~Background section could do with a bit more filling out, as there are some contextual gaps that could be helpful for the reader to know about.~~

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Very focused, without any major deviations.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
~~No major neutrality issues, although a couple cases where euphemisms are used instead of clear language.~~
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No reversions in over a year of the article existing. No major changes since GA nomination.
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:
Valid public domain rationale for VOA photo; but the YouTube video published by СРБИН.инфо appears to have been released under the standard YouTube license, not a Creative Commons license. Please clarify if I'm missing something, or remove/replace the images as necessary.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are from the demonstrations, clearly relevant and with captions and alt text provided.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Main issues with this article right now are with the prose, as it's sometimes not clear or concise, with a couple cases of euphemisms and passive voice on top. Once the prose issues are sorted, a bit more context is provided in the background section, and the licenses of the images are clarified, I'll be happy to look at this again. Ping me when you've seen to my comments and I'll give it another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: All

Done. Regarding the СРБИН.инфо photograph, see here where it shows that the video was uploaded with a CC license. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thanks for seeing to all this. I'm happy to pass this review now. You might want to add this archived link to the WikiCommons pages, just to make the CC license extra clear. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, will do now!

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]