Talk:Serbian Progressive Party/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 22:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Shushugah any updates? (t · c) buidhe 06:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The article got promoted so I assume that Shushugah forgot to update this at the GA drive. Vacant0 (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup it is GA approved :) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a 270+ day old review with 6,000 words of text. I am not an expert on Serbian politics, but I will try my best in providing constructive feedback and checking source integrity. I am going through this now

Well-written

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:

• Y

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

• Y Lede has issues (see further below)
• Y MOS:LAYOUT is correct
• Y neutrally worded for most part. No weasel words. I gave some examples where important context is missing. Will continue careful reading of select sources

Verifiable with no original research

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

• Y

(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):

• Y

(c) it contains no original research:

• Y

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:

• Y checked using earwig

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

• Y I gave some specific suggestions below but basically yes

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

• Y mostly agree, although some of the history could be trimmed further, but not a blocker for me.
• Y

Neutral

• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
• Y

Stable

• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
• Y
• Y

Illustrated

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

• Y

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

• Y
• Y

Overall

1. Well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated

Foreign sources

• Appropriately, the article makes use of WP:FOREIGNSOURCES. Most of them correctly use lang parameter with ISO values SR or DE, however some of these seem to be locales. The valid ISO language codes for Wikipedia are listed in Template:Citation Style documentation/language/doc. sr-latn is explicitly mentioned as a non supported example of IETF language tag in the earlier documentation.
  • Replace language=hr-HR with language=hr
  • Replace language=sr-RS with language=SR
  • Replace language=sr-LATN with language=SR or language=SR-el
    •  Done
• With 279 instances of non English language sources being used, they should all ideally have trans-title= parameters with English translated titles. It makes it harder to skim/search the different sourcing.
  •  Done This might take a little longer, will look to finish this by the end of the day. Added all missing title translations.

Lede

The lede is absolutely too long. The first paragraph could be trimmed to:

• The Serbian Progressive Party (Serbian Cyrillic: Српска напредна странка, romanized: Srpska napredna stranka, SNS) has been the ruling political party of Serbia since 2012. Miloš Vučević has served as its president since 2023

Second paragraph could be trimmed as well. Third paragraph could be outright removed in my opinion. The fourth paragraph is incredibly confusing/contradictory. Instead perhaps summarize that social scientists characterize SNS by its political fluidity/pragmatism, and doesn't consistently fit into a conservative frame.

•  Done I will trim it down as most as I can by keeping only the most important information in the lede.

History

For feedback on this section

Formation

In the first sentence start with the fact that Nikolić left SRS to found the early predecessor of SNS, after a conflict with SRS member Šešelj.

What does this sentence mean? By that period, SNS mostly received support from SRS members, while the SNS parliamentary group sat at 21 MPs

•  Done Reformatted that sentence. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

2008 - 2011

• According to Radio Free Europe source, while SNS did support the Srebrenica Declaration, they also wanted to condemn all victims of the massacre, which is an important political position/nuance that is missing here.
  •  Done
• abstained from voting
  •  Done
• Replace two mentions of NS with New Serbia for clarity
  •  Done

2012 - 2013

• to consult for them (consult with means in the other direction)
  •  Done Yes, typo, fixed now.

2014 - 2016

• secure it or ensure it instead of grammatically incorrect insure it
  •  Done

Ideology and platform

You don't need to cite and quote so many sources saying they are populist.

• I trimmed some content from this section (regarding populism).

• The description/debate of their political compass should be separated from domestic section, as being populist is more foundational than domestic/foreign/other policies. Perhaps it could be separated into its own subsection political leanings grouped underneath Demographic characteristics? I would also create subsection Freedom of press.
  • I personally wanted to ask your opinion on this, but this looks good. I've split the subsections and reorganised the sentences a bit.
• There is a WP:WEIGHT issue, Orlic claims that Serbia ranks higher than some EU countries in Freedom House metric. This sounds dubious, and I couldn't find what he was referencing here. We shouldn't leave such a quote in place unless it can be verified or contextualised.
  • Removed it.
• although that its image -> although its image
  •  Done
• SNS took part in a meeting with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials in 2019. -> should be sorted chronologically by year like the other sections
  •  Done

Spot check references

Apologies for the delay. With over 300 sources, I have spot checked the following sources with special focus for controversial claims over routine factual claims:

• EarlierRadio Free Europe source was not verifying contextually the claim it made, that is now fixed (see above)

• Serbia BBC

• European Policy Center

• V-Dem Institute report is missing a link to the report, which I found here. I would also specify that the claim is found on page 19, instead of the range of 12-23, which was interesting reading but not actually relevant for the sourced claim.
  •  Done. I meant pages 12 and 19. Not 12 through 23. This has been fixed now. On p12, you can see the graph where Serbia is ranked as an electoral autocracy. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing coverage

• While there is coverage of Serbia's relationship with Russia, as a reader I was curious if Ukraine changed SNS stance. It has not from what I read/found online, e.g these two articles, but would be good to insert that in the article. Source 1, and source 2.
  •  Done
• Militarily cooperating with NATO? Would be good to wikilink to Kosovo Force, which is the main NATO mission that Serbian military cooperates with beyond military exercises/trainings. Sourcing is already there.
  •  Done

References