Talk:United Opposition of Serbia/GA1

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MX (talk · contribs) 17:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Part 1

Hello. I'll be reviewing this article. Part 1 will consist of full read and copyediting suggestions. I'll look at prose, style, images, etc. Part 2 will consist of source review, citations, and lead/infobox verification. Since I already worked on United for the Victory of Serbia, I feel this article is appropriate for me to review. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1 checks out. Prose is good, style complies with our policy, and I found no instances of close paraphrasing / plagiarism. Foreign languange sources accepted in good faith. Please review my copyedits and let me know if you have any questions.

Comment: Thanks for copy-editing. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've also copy-edited for a bit. If you've checked everything, then all seems to be good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Part 2

It positioned itself as an anti-Vučić catch-all coalition - This claim is in the lead paragraphs but not cited elsewhere in the body. Please add this fact in the body with the appropriate source.

Done Big tent was unsourced, removed it. I've re-worded this sentence a bit. This is backed up by Ref9 and Ref12. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political position: Big tent - Same goes for this fact in the infobox.

Done Removed. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolved: 21 January 2021 - The day is mentioned here but nowhere else. I just want to make sure it is actually the 21st and not another date. Please check add the 21th or whatever the correct date is to the body paragraphs with a source.

Done Backed up by ref 23. Added this in the text. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Members" section - I just want to make sure since I cannot read Serbian. Is all Members information in the infobox cited with this source? I tried doing searches of the party names with the Serbian (romanticized and not) and didn't find same of the names. I also want to make sure the source cites their main idealogy, leaders, political position, etc. This has to be cited here and not in their respective articles per WP:CIRCULAR. If not we may need a source for each party and its supporting information.

Comment: Ref 38 backs up the claim that Vukadinović was a part of the coalition. Do you want me to add sources for ideologies? --Vacant0 (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've added the sources for the table. Vacant0 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA assessment

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

All issues/comments have been addressed and the article is ready for GA. Great job! MX (✉ • ✎) 16:09, 28 November 2022 (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.