Talk:Serbian Party Oathkeepers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and review this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 00:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

• Looks good

Lead

• "commonly just known as" → "commonly known as simply" or "just"
  •  Done
• "Initially, an association known as Serbian Council Oathkeepers, SSZ was formed [...]" → "Initially known as Serbian Council Oathkeepers, SSZ was formed [...]"
  •  Done
• Is there any chance that Stefan Stamenkovski is notable enough to get an article in the future? if so, leave a red link there WP:REDYES
  •  Done
• mention that Republika Srpska is an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina
  •  Done
• "supports changing Serbia's immigration system", in what regard?
  •  Done Changed it to "restricting"
• Replace "It" in the last sentence of the lead with "SSZ" to break a series of "it"s at the end of the 3rd paragraph
  •  Done

History

2012–2014

• Remove the "(Sretenje)" translation of Presentation of Jesus
  •  Done
• Remove "also known in Serbian as Kosovski zavet", and mention what Kosovo Myth is
  •  Done
• "A day after the formation" → "A day after SSZ's formation"
  •  Done
• "organised by SSZ and organisations": add "far-right" between "and" and "organisations" since all those listed are described as far-right on their Wikipedia pages
  •  Done
• Mention what the Brussels Agreement was
  •  Done

2015–2017

• Any specific reason that SSZ protested the commemoration of the Srebrenica massacre?
  •  Done
• Any specific reason that SSZ rallied to support Ratko Mladić?
  •  Done

2018–2020

• What does "Mirëdita, dobar dan!" mean, translate it in the interlanguage link
  •  Done
• The prose says the party was registered on 14 June 2019 while the infobox says it was 14 August 2019, which is it?
  •  Done August
• Also, possibly important or may be irrelevant, what's the difference between being a registered party and not being registered in Serbia, since it seems that the party was able to participate in elections before registration and it doesn't seem to me that anything was different afterwards.
  • Citizens groups or associations do not hold the same legal rights as political parties.
• Does Republic Electoral Commission link to anything? on Serbian Wikipedia? red link per WP:REDYES?
  •  Done
• Who is Zoran Zečević (occupation)?
  •  Done Linked
• "SSZ did not cross the 3 percent electoral threshold", in order to gain representation in parliament?
  •  Done

2021–present

• Why did SSZ refuse to join the government coalition?
  •  Done
• Specify that Miloš Ković is at the Faculty of Philosophy of the *University of Belgrade*
  •  Done
• Mention somewhere that Đurđević became the party's president in 2021
  •  Done

Ideology and platform

• Specify Dušan Spasojević is at the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Belgrade
  •  Done
• "introduction of law alike the" → "a law alike" or "laws alike"
  •  Done
• Specify what "Europe of Nations" is
  •  Done
• Mention Darya Dugina's occupation
  •  Done
• "has been committed on Bosniaks" → "had been committed on Bosniaks"
  •  Done

Organisation

• No CC or PD image of Stefan Stamenkovski?
  • Nope

Electoral performance

• References needed for 2023 performances
  •  Done

References

• References seem to be reliable/scholarly
• Add the Politics portal to the portal template
  •  Done

Images

• File:Serbian Party Oathkeepers logo.svg – fair use
• File:Milica Đurđević Stamenkovski 2022.png – cc 3.0
• File:Milica Đurđević Stamenkovski and Boško Obradović at RIK, 4 November 2023.png – cc 3.0
• Licenses seem to be fine PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 00:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Overall

• No war edits/stable
• Broad and focused on topic
• Neutral

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Vacant0: I've left comments for the GAN. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 01:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this tomorrow. Vacant0 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I was busy, I'll start working on this today. Vacant0 (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: All done. Vacant0 (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @PizzaKing13, could you take a look and promote the article? Vacant0 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Sorry for the delay. Everything looks good to me. I'll pass this review. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)