Talk:1990 Croatian parliamentary election/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Winner 42 (talk · contribs) 17:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Overall Comments

Placing under review. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Review is done, placing on hold. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• No dead links, dab links, or copyvios
• Oxford comma usage is inconsistent
• The article uses "SKH-SDP" and "SDP-SKH" interchangeably

Sectional Analysis

• Lead
  • Excellently written and complies with MOS:LEAD, practically FA class work

• Background
  • one day before the party's 11th Congress Could use a wikilink to the congress or a short explanation of the political situation that led to this vote.
  • The acronym "SKJ" is not defined in the text
  • Were these proposals the ZKS's or the SKH's or both?
  • Was was the SKJ ended if the proposals were rejected?

• Electoral legislation
  • February In 1989?
  • The different legislatures could use wikilinks.
  • Which opposition groups opposed it, minor parties?

• Political parties
  • Perhaps a little more background on SKH or KNS as they seemed to have a lot of influence in this election

• Campaign
  • media manipulation and even paranoia I can't seem to find the source for this, could you make it more clear?
  • In this section you offer quotes of campaign slogans, I presume that these slogans are translated, if so that should be mentioned.
  • For the SKH-SDP, the elections primarily meant a campaign for the reform of the Yugoslav federation. The HDZ's priority was building the Croatian state Can you clarify how are these things specifically different? Additionally including other major policy platforms would be helpful in providing comprehensive coverage to the reader.
  • The last paragraph of the first subsection could benefit from dates to aid readers in establishing a timeline of events.

• Media Coverage
  • That first paragraph makes some fairly bold claims, an addition source besides Pauković would help in establishing its neutrality.
  • Was the Yugoslav Independent Democratic Party not standing for election because right before that the article states that the rally It was not formally associated with any party standing in the election
  • Were there any major debates that gathered significant media coverage?

• Voting and results
  • Are these percentages of the total population, of registered voters, or of some other category? (Noting the lack of universal suffrage in this election as described earlier)
  • would be removed from public office Is this referring to the practice of Cronyism or merely appointing ideologically similar people to political positions?

• Aftermath
  • Serbs from public office Is this related to/an example of Anti-Serb sentiment?

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: {{GAList/check|}y}

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Closing comment

The nominator has not edited on Wikipedia since late June, the article itself hasn't been edited since a typo fix around that time (and a major copyedit in late May), and the reviewer has just retired from Wikipedia. Given the issues raised in the review, I am closing this nomination; the article is not being listed. Should the nominator return, I suggest addressing all the issues raised in the review before renominating; a peer review might also be useful. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)