Talk:Serbian Radical Party/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lihaas (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Review by WP:GA? criteria:

1. Seems well-written (although the first entry of SRS outside the lead should ahve the party name, WP:OVERLINK doesnt apply to differences/reptitions in lead and body). Also the history seems to be the bulk of the rticle (in which case it could be a "History of..."). Id suggest somehow breaking up the sections further,. Perhaps the last 2 subsection which can come after idology. (certainly the election prose can go with the results table) Lead is good, but do we need the details after "currently border Serbia – all former federal republics of Yugoslavia..." in the first apra. Also need to clarify "Šešelj and other hardliners continued to oppose" perhaps write his faction as int he other chap. "(Serbs generally being strongly anti-german), and the " German needs caps and the comma can go. Also need to differentiate ebtween general background and early years as it seems similar. alternatively you can remove the background section and clump into history OR make background a seperate section before history altogether. Wouldnt "draconoic laws" be a bit pov? Surely one-side doesnt think so. "During the Yugoslav Wars some...forces such as the White Eagles" para should be moved up chronologically and the milosevic issue can be merged with the end of the alst para about his ouster.
2. Very well sourced except dfor "Leadership" and election results (for the 2 redlinked pres elections). Also the Pribićević abnd Bugajski sources would be better with the full title in the first occurence. (i understand its in further readings, but either move that to the refs or move further readings above)(
3. Any prose on its current status?
4. doesnt change significantly day to ady (except that it went through a recent revamp), neutral, images (although 1-2 in other lower sections wouldnt hurt). Cant you also add the politics of serbia template (or link from the first occurence of serbian politics?). And wikilink for "radical nationalist "

• Also did you post the SRS response on the Libyan war page as both pertinent and getting broader views?
• And also this is by no mean a requirement, you could translate the pertinent Serbian sources in quotes in the refs.
• Article is also at least C-class at the moment.
• Also checklinks theres 1 dead link and some other stuff to correct.
• And this [1]

I have now edited the article according to most of what you write here, that which was intelligible at least (your writing here is sometimes so poor and messy I can simply not understand what you mean). Otherwise I think the election tables are comprehensible enough for their own section (would be hard to imagine how it could be merged with prose), and a "Serbian politics" link is already included in the main infobox. – Bellatores (t.) 12:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-review: first ref is not complete. what is Pribićević's first name? or does he go by one name? Also since the book is not clickable with a link can the relevant passage be quoted?

The first mention of SRS outside the lead needs the whole name with SRS in brackets. Its true that the election section is good enough (and now sourced, which is good) but theres no harm in adding "Opposition and electoral success" there. Prose is generally preferred to tables.

also sources for "Leadership" section?

Seems good to go otherwise.Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Please look at WP:SFN. The supposed need to give the full information in the short references, which is already in the bibliography section, is with all due respect something you have just made up. A link to the book can also be found in the bibliography section. 2) I have now included "(SRS)". 3) I question the need to include prose in the table-sections, which I have not needed with any of "my" other GAs. I think it is best to include it in the history-section, so that the reader also get the historical context. I don't really see the value of splitting up the section, or to just write some faux prose. 4) Is there any particular reason to re-source what one can already find in the prose under History? – Bellatores (t.) 20:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesnt mean changes are inherently wrong. the more sources the merrier. At any rate, its not off the top of my head, in academia thats how sources work.

Dont see why his first name could not be added as all other info is there. (and the other fellows full name)

point 4: a "ref name" couldnt hurt. other than that were all ready. Though also ref 22 is better suited to Šešelj's page.

And Nikolić deputy leadership is mentioned twice in the same section "Foundation and early years" and theres no source at all about Dragan Todorović. (Lihaas (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).

Ok. You have now edited the article so much that I would like to have a second opinion on these issues. My last version of the article was here; [2], until you did some major edits to the current version [3], which I all in all find rather problematic. – Bellatores (t.) 07:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What is problematic? we can discuss that.

Im okay with the 3O

Incidentally the last point above doesnt seem controversial enough. you can change that.(Lihaas (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)).

I strongly oppose the edit that just removed a large chunk of text from the history-section and inserted it in the "Electoral performance" section. I also oppose the insertion of the Politics of Serbia template; there has for a long time been concensus to not include these in articles about political parties. (I think it was agreed on somewhere actually, but I don't recall where/when.) A source for Dragan Todorović should not be a problem to find though. – Bellatores (t.) 11:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

good on the latter. ill remove the gtemplate. but still think prose on an empty section is good. lets wait for 3OLihaas (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Have now added prose with sources on Todorović. Also made some minor changes to reflect what sources says on the nature of his acting leadership. – Bellatores (t.) 13:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems ready for GA to me. Are you awaiting the 3O or are you set as is?Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you want to resolve the issue of you moving the particular section, but I continue to disagree with it. I still don't see the value of blowing a wide whole in the history-section of the party, simply for the purpose of using it as landfill in the electoral performance section. The style of the prose itself is totally misplaced for "electoral performance" (it includes information which is irrelevant for such a section, and much more suited for the history-section). – Bellatores (t.) 19:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats more for the talk page than here, we can try for another opinion. Alternatively, nothing to say a GA cant be edited later with consensus as long as there isnt an edit war. Your choise which of the two paths to try as its your nom,.Lihaas (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is only you I must have consensus with, so I don't see the purpose of passing it as GA and then starting up a discussion right afterwards. I have made my case on the issue in question, and have nothing more to add to it; as far as I am concerned it is you who fail to make up a case for moving the section to an inappropriate place. It was good as it was, and you made an unnecessary edit. I don't intend to "stop" you from writing something there of course, but the cheap act of moving an unrelated section there just for adding "prose" is totally misguided. – Bellatores (t.) 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

firstly, its not my fault (not resorting to NPA blames would help you). it was in the right, the split is 1-1 and someone needs to break the conesensus logjam. likewise i dont have any further morves as much as yoyu, so if its my fault its your fault too that were split. I digress hat it was good as it was, it wasnt.! "cheap act" is your opinion, please keep that out of moving forward, you dont atttack other edits/editors, you should work towards discussion.(Lihaas (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)).

Spare me of this evasive talk. If you think the article is a GA now, then approve it. You are the reviewer. – Bellatores (t.) 11:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly learn to be WP:CIVIL (theres a way to say things) rather than NPA accusations that are not AGF.

Secondly, I wsa asking what you think because its you r nomination. we work collobaratively on WP.(Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)).

I apologize for being rather irratable here, but it is only because I have stated repeatedly my position on the particular issue. I still think the paragraphs fit poorly in the section on election results, and I would like very much to move them back where they belong. It is only my respect for Wikipedia collaboration that stops me from being bold here and just do it myself, because I still seek to have consensus with you. It would be nice if you could reconsider your position, and consider that I have used the same "format" for this in all the five other political party GAs I have created, without the question of prose in the election table section ever being raised. – Bellatores (t.) 19:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)