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.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
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
"A populist coalition led by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) came to power after the 2012 parliamentary election, along with the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS)." This is a bit confusing to read. I suggest it be rewritten as "Following the 2012 parliamentary election, a populist coalition led by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) rose to power." or something similar.
There is an 11 year time jump between the first and second sentences. This is very jarring to read. If you could fill in the gap with some context of what the SNS-led government did during these 11 years that can provide context for these protests, it would be very helpful.
There is an uncomfortable use of passive voice in saying "a school shooting occurred" and "a mass murder occurred". Be a bit more specific about what happened and use active voice.
Spotcheck:[3][4] Verified.
Link to the 2023 protests and elections inline, rather than dumping them at the top of the section under "Further information".
Why were people protesting? How does it relate to the government and/or election?
Spotcheck:[7] Verified.
"Amidst the protests," Think this could be cut for concision. The context is implicit.
Spotcheck:[8][9] Verified.
"The elections on 17 December were marked by electoral fraud, according to reports of those who monitored the elections, including CeSID, CRTA, and Kreni-Promeni organisations." We should lead with "According to [...]", as beginning the sentence with the allegations makes it read initially like it's in Wikivoice.
Spotcheck:[10][11][12] Verified.
"Among the irregularities reported by domestic and international observers were" Rewrite to "Domestic and international observers reported irregularities such as [...]"
Spotcheck:[10] Verified.
Spotcheck:[13] Verified.
"the government and the opposition neither won a majority" -> "neither the government nor the opposition won a majority".
Spotcheck:[14][15] Verified.
I'm not sure "hung parliament" is the correct term for a municipal council? It's a term specifically for Westminster-style legislatures.
Why do we specify the results of the Belgrade council elections but not the nationwide parliamentary election?
Spotcheck:[17] Verified.
"electoral fraud allegations" -> "allegations of electoral fraud"
Spotcheck:[11] Verified.
Spotcheck:[20] Verified.
Translations of Serbian language quotes aren't provided consistently. Per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE, we should always be providing the originals when we are doing the translations ourselves.
"At the protest, SPN announced that they would reject the Belgrade City Assembly election results, [...]" This is quite the long sentence and could be broken up. I suggest ending the sentence at "citing irregularities that took place during the election." and starting a new one with "They also demanded the annulment [...]"
Spotcheck:[22][23] First part of sentence is verified by first source, second part by second source. These should be moved inline with the specific information they're verifying.
"The protest was met with a few incidents;" Met with? This implies that what happened went against the protests, not that it was protestors doing it.
Spotcheck:[24][25][26] Verified.
"The second protest was also attended" Drop the "also".
"all of whom initiated ProGlas during the 2023 election campaign, to boost the turnout of the elections" This is a bit confusing. What was "ProGlas"?
Spotcheck:[27] Verified.
"began their hunger strike" -> "began a hunger strike" (in each case).
Spotcheck:[28] Verified.
Spotcheck:[29] Verified.
Spotcheck:[30] Verified.
"presided by" -> "presided over by"
Spotcheck:[33] Verified.
Spotcheck:[34] Verified.
"Temporary Council of Belgrade" What is this? It's not been mentioned before.
"The building was, however, armed inside with the police and gendarmery," Bit confusingly written. "However, the building was under armed guard by the police and gendarmery" or something similar would read better.
"and they tried to enter the building violently" This is written a bit euphemistically. How was their attempted entry of the building violent? Be specific. Otherwise, "they tried to force their way into the building" might read better.
"saying that it was" -> "describing it as"
Spotcheck:[38][39][40][41] Verified.
"Željko Vagić, the president of the Party of Freedom and Justice (SSP) board in the Belgrade municipality of Grocka," This is a very long descriptor and it breaks up the flow of the sentence. Figure out a way to condense it.
What did Šapić say at the press conference?
Spotcheck:[45][46] Verified, although the citations should be moved inline with the specific information being verified.
"informed" -> "reported"
Spotcheck:[48][49] Verified, although the citations should be moved inline with the specific information being verified.
"coercive means" Another euphemism, be more clear.
"admitted guilt" -> "pled guilty".
To what did they admit guilt? What specific charges?
"and declined the claim that" Change "declined" to either "rejected" or "denied".
Spotcheck:[81] Verified.
"Tomislav Nikolić's hunger strike in 2011" What does this have to do with the 2023 protest? It's very confusing to see it raised here without any context.
"Amidst" -> "During"
Spotcheck:[84] Verified.
Spotcheck:[87] Verified.
Spotcheck:[88] Verified.
Spotcheck:[89] Verified.
"expressed their support for rejecting" -> "rejected"
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
There's quite a few grammatical and prose issues throughout the text, much of which does not currently meet the standards for clarity or concision. This can be fixed by following some of the above comments.
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References are all properly presented.
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):
Sources appear to all be reliable and come from legitimate publications. In some cases, the citations could be moved closer inline with specific information rather than bundling at the end of long sentences.
Valid public domain rationale for VOA photo; but the YouTube video published by СРБИН.инфо appears to have been released under the standard YouTube license, not a Creative Commons license. Please clarify if I'm missing something, or remove/replace the images as necessary.
Images are from the demonstrations, clearly relevant and with captions and alt text provided.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Main issues with this article right now are with the prose, as it's sometimes not clear or concise, with a couple cases of euphemisms and passive voice on top. Once the prose issues are sorted, a bit more context is provided in the background section, and the licenses of the images are clarified, I'll be happy to look at this again. Ping me when you've seen to my comments and I'll give it another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Thanks for seeing to all this. I'm happy to pass this review now. You might want to add this archived link to the WikiCommons pages, just to make the CC license extra clear. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Regarding the СРБИН.инфо photograph, see here where it shows that the video was uploaded with a CC license. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
