Talk:Serbia Against Violence (coalition)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Serbia Against Violence (coalition) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Serbia Against Violence (coalition) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 1, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Serbia Against Violence (coalition). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Serbia Against Violence (coalition) at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Serbia: Belgrade Mid‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Belgrade task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Green Politics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Green PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Green PoliticsGreen Politics articles

GA Review

Passed. History6042 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Serbia Against Violence (coalition)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 01:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this article.

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.	I could read this no promblem.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead seems fine, layout is good, words to watch aren't in there, it's not fiction, and the only list is in the members. It complies.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There isn't any uncited info. There is also a references section.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	There isn't any uncited info.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It addresses the coalition's members, ideology, history, and performence.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think this is fine, there isn't too much detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I see no biased content.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is no edit warring.
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.	Yes, the image has a good copyright tag.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, the image is relevant because it shows the party's representatives.
	7. Overall assessment.

Sources

I will now check sources. History6042 (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have no copyright issues and support the text. History6042 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8, 9, 10, and 11 are fine. History6042 (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are a newer reviewer, so FYI, you do not have to spotcheck all references in the article. You are only required to spotcheck a certain amount of them to confirm whether there is no original research. However, you are required to check the reliability of all references. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. History6042 (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are all good. History6042 (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I will check reliability. History6042 (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems good.History6042 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this passes. History6042 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.