Talk:United for the Victory of Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article name

Perhaps this point would have been more timely a week ago, but would it make sense to rename this article as "United for the Victory of Serbia"? My sense is that the coalition is more often referred to by this name ... and, beyond which, the name change would help to avoid any possible confusion with United Serbia (JS). CJCurrie (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources use both "United Serbia" and "United for the Victory of Serbia", although I'd support the change in order to match the "Together We Can Do Everything", which is the coalition led by SNS. Vacant0 (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

---

United Serbia (coalition) → United for the Victory of Serbia – Both "United Serbia" and "United for the Victory of Serbia" are used in credible media sources. "United for the Victory of Serbia" is more consistent with the precedent established by the Together We Can Do Everything article and would also avoid confusion with the political party United Serbia, with which the coalition has basically nothing in common. Support as nominator. CJCurrie (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support For the sake of consistency. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Per above. Elserbio00 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United for the Victory of Serbia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MX (talk · contribs) 06:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Review: Part 1

Hello. I'll be reviewing this article. Part 1 will consist of full read and copyediting suggestions. I'll look at prose, style, images, etc. Part 2 will consist of source review, citations, and lead/infobox verification. MX (✉ • ✎) 06:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

• Information mentioned in the infobox has to be mentioned and cited elsewhere in the body paragraphs, per WP:INFOBOXCITE.

 Done Already mentioned. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• There is no mention of "Big tent", the colors, and the slogan anywhere, please include them in the body paragraphs with a source

 Done Added source for the slogan, replaced "Big tent" with "Centre", which is backed up by sources. The colors do not need a source, this can be already seen in the logo. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

History

• Since then, the coallition has held rallies - Per MOS:CURRENT, the "since then" can quickly get outdated. Please add the appropriate phrasing to remove time-sensitive wording.

 Done Fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• RIK confirmed Ponoš as a presidential candidate on 6 Marc - Who/what is the RIK? There is no mention of this organization or person before. Please spell it out if it is an acronym and/or consider hyperlinking it too.

 Done Fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Pavle Grbović, the leader of the Movement of Free Citizens, - Please hyperlink this party and add its acronym too.

 Done Fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• On 28 May, it was announced that the SSP, Movement of Free Citizens (PSG), - Keep PSG only without hyperlinking for this instance

 Done Fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Electoral performance

• This entire section is unsourced. Could you please add a source that backs up the information mentioned here? I'll be checking this info since it is numerical and not entirely in a foreign language.

 Comment: Sources for the results can be found on their respective pages, they are not needed here. This is a common practice among the majority of political party articles, even among GA articles. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vacant0 - Per WP:CIRCULAR, we are not allowed to use another Wikipedia article as the "source" for another. Every claim in an article has to have an inline citation. If you think you may have trouble citing the sources appropriate, you can share them here and I can help you. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't need help, I'll add the sources now. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Added refs. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Notes and references

• Comments and claims in these sections also require citations as they may run the risk of being original research if not included. Please add references to these sentences.

 Done Done. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This was a comment about "Notes" a, b, and c. They are still unsourced.

 Done --Vacant0 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Review: Part 2

• I checked all the references and made sure they take readers to the appropriate sources. All checks out.
• I checked a few sources for appropriate attribution and all checks out.
• All of the sources are reliable; none require print/offline access but they are in a foreign language and accepted in good faith. Nothing controversial was found that made me request a direct quote.
• Article is well written; should nominator want to promote it to FA status, I recommend a copyedit request at GOCE.

GA assessment

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.