"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)" - a little unclear. I suggest 'A populist coalition, led by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and supported by the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), came to power after the 2012 parliamentary election'
"Vučić launched the "Future of Serbia" campaign in 2019" - The source doesn't expand on this much but it leaves me wondering what this campaign is/was (i.e. this a government works programme? An advertising campaign?)
"it was agreed that the minimum number of collected signatories for minority ballot lists would be set to 5,000" - I know it's explained in a bit more detail in the electoral system section, but this sentence is very confusing for readers without prior knowledge of the Serbian system
"SNS declined to separate the election dates for the 2022 general election" - What would separating the dates mean? Holding the presidential and parliamentary elections on different dates?
"they either withdrew due to obstructions or they failed to collect enough signatures" - What is meant by obstructions? Perhaps simply 'they either withdrew or failed to collect enough signatures.'
Done Clarified. Yeah, they failed to collect enough signatures though the candidates themselves claimed that it was due to "obstructions". --
Vacant0 (
talk)
22:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
"RIK announced that voting would be repeated at some stations" - Was there an official explanation for the repeated voting? The cited source explains the process, but not the cause of the repeated voting.
The second paragraph contains a lot of quotations from the PACE and OSCE reports. This isn't a major issue, but it might worth considering paraphrasing some of the reports' findings further for readability. It also is worth considering the minimal use criterion of non-free content
WP:NFCCEG
Done I wasn't actually the one who added that paragraph, though I trimmed it and paraphrased it a bit. Hope it is good now. --
Vacant0 (
talk)
10:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Lead section
"Opposition parties also solidified their presence in the elections, such as the United for the Victory of Serbia (UZPS) coalition that received the greatest support amongst opposition parties in opinion polls." This is information which is not discussed in the body of the article. I suggest removing this sentence and add one or two sentences summarising the election issues.
I will place the review on hold. The only thing that I feel doesn't meet the criteria is the lead section's discussion of UZPS in opinion polling
MOS:INTRO. Otherwise, this is fantastic work. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments.
Adabow (
talk)
08:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I changed a few instances of
past perfect ("had stated") to
simple past ("stated") for clarity and concision. It might be worth a second look at some of the instances I may have missed. There are also uses of both American (organized, criticized) and British (organise, recognised) spellings. I suggest
picking one and sticking to it. The templates {{Use American English}} or {{Use British English}} may help.
While I am unfamiliar with Serbian media, all potentially controversial content appears to be supported by reliable sources. Spot checks of links turned no failed verifications.
"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)" - a little unclear. I suggest 'A populist coalition, led by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and supported by the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), came to power after the 2012 parliamentary election'
"Vučić launched the "Future of Serbia" campaign in 2019" - The source doesn't expand on this much but it leaves me wondering what this campaign is/was (i.e. this a government works programme? An advertising campaign?)
"it was agreed that the minimum number of collected signatories for minority ballot lists would be set to 5,000" - I know it's explained in a bit more detail in the electoral system section, but this sentence is very confusing for readers without prior knowledge of the Serbian system
"SNS declined to separate the election dates for the 2022 general election" - What would separating the dates mean? Holding the presidential and parliamentary elections on different dates?
"they either withdrew due to obstructions or they failed to collect enough signatures" - What is meant by obstructions? Perhaps simply 'they either withdrew or failed to collect enough signatures.'
Done Clarified. Yeah, they failed to collect enough signatures though the candidates themselves claimed that it was due to "obstructions". --
Vacant0 (
talk)
22:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
"RIK announced that voting would be repeated at some stations" - Was there an official explanation for the repeated voting? The cited source explains the process, but not the cause of the repeated voting.
The second paragraph contains a lot of quotations from the PACE and OSCE reports. This isn't a major issue, but it might worth considering paraphrasing some of the reports' findings further for readability. It also is worth considering the minimal use criterion of non-free content
WP:NFCCEG
Done I wasn't actually the one who added that paragraph, though I trimmed it and paraphrased it a bit. Hope it is good now. --
Vacant0 (
talk)
10:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Lead section
"Opposition parties also solidified their presence in the elections, such as the United for the Victory of Serbia (UZPS) coalition that received the greatest support amongst opposition parties in opinion polls." This is information which is not discussed in the body of the article. I suggest removing this sentence and add one or two sentences summarising the election issues.
I will place the review on hold. The only thing that I feel doesn't meet the criteria is the lead section's discussion of UZPS in opinion polling
MOS:INTRO. Otherwise, this is fantastic work. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments.
Adabow (
talk)
08:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)reply
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I changed a few instances of
past perfect ("had stated") to
simple past ("stated") for clarity and concision. It might be worth a second look at some of the instances I may have missed. There are also uses of both American (organized, criticized) and British (organise, recognised) spellings. I suggest
picking one and sticking to it. The templates {{Use American English}} or {{Use British English}} may help.
While I am unfamiliar with Serbian media, all potentially controversial content appears to be supported by reliable sources. Spot checks of links turned no failed verifications.