Talk:Serbia Against Violence (coalition)/GA1

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.

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

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.