Talk:Socialist Party of Serbia/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

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 15:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

After a cursory glance there don't seem to be any article qualities that warrant quickfailing, so I'm going to get right into reviewing.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to a broad audience. The spelling and grammar is correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Aside from a few graph errors (which I have been told not to count), the article meets MoS standards for the lead section length, the layout, and other MoS items.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article contains reference section of all inline citations and are formatted in accordance with MoS guidelines
	2b. 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).	After checking the citations at random (using a lot of google translate, obviously it's all in Serbian), the citations show that they back up their corresponding inline claims
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article does not contain any original research, all claims are cited inline
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	After running it through plagiarismdetector I have not found any plagiarism that is not circular
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses the main aspects of the topic, appropriately discussing the main parts (history, organisation, etc) of the subject.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article does not go into unnecessary detail on any specific topic (ie, important people within the party have their own articles), and the article stays focuses on the main aspects of the topic
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article does not give any undue weight to one opinion in the article and makes factual statements about the article subject
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is related to serbian politics, so naturally it is semi-protected. I can't see any recent edit warring that would warrant a comment.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images used in the article are tagged with copyright status, although some I am having trouble locating. I'll look this up on the wayback machine later into the review (fixed during review)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to the article and appropriately captioned
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall a good article, I think that it meets GA standards

@DimensionalFusion: FYI I've replaced the URLs for Dačić's and Jović's images. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

For Milošević's image, I believe it is from a private gallery. That is what I assume at least because it is not present on Kragujević's website. I've already asked the uploader a question for another Kragujević's photo but I've been ignored. At least we know that Kragujević indeed take the photo. Vacant0 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah excellent, I'll be sure to check that out DimensionalFusion (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2023 (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.