Talk:2007 Slovenian presidential election

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are some minor problems with the prose, a missing definite article here, an absent comma there, but nothing too dramatic. The article should also be checked for consistency in the punctuation of names (for example, that the umlaut is present in every mention of Türk, if that is how his name is spelled).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A few more citations would not be out of place in this article. There are some headings where not even one sentence is referenced. This should be corrected.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There are some problems with the actual prose itself, specifically in subject relevancy. For example, the article mentions a candidate debate on voting by non-resident nationals, and then mentions the electoral commission sent ballots to them. Is this because of what was said in the debate or something else; did the debate even take place? In other places, the article goes in-depth with the prose on some controversies, but not others. Why?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   This is one of the most table articles I’ve seen come through GA recently, especially to have spent over a month on the list.

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There aren’t really any images in this article…are there any official photographs of the candidates that could be used? Normally, official photos of heads of state are not subject to copyright, so you might start there.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I think this article is good, close even, but just not quite there yet. jackturner3 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "NYT about Drnovšek" :
  • [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/world/europe/09drnovsek.html Slovenian President Finds Peace and Wants to Share It - New York Times<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • <ref>http://www.up-rs.si/up-rs/uprs-ang.nsf/dokumentiweb/0EDCAB61EBF8BC04C1257250006AF5F0?OpenDocument

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dead page

Reference 28, links to http://www.wieninternational.at/de/node/5017. Checked on two computers. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Working for me, checked on two computers... Shall I send you a screenshot? --Tone 08:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It will be better to ask for a third opinion. What browser are you using? I've tried this at FF 3 and IE 5.0. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FF3. I'll have a look, maybe I find a suitable alternative to this ref. --Tone 08:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Write man of the people peterle in Google. The second hit is the reference and gives a sufficient text to verify the quote. --Tone 08:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for me the second hit is the Wikipedia article, but the third one [1] includes this phrase. My proposal is to replace the reference 28 with this article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The same problem with reference 52, links to http://www.wieninternational.at/en/node/5822. This one should be verified too. Perhaps your browser is displaying a cached version of this page or something. I've tried this now with Opera too. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is now replaced, thanks for the Schuman link. --Tone 17:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I am having no problems with these links Scapler (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

The template I added at the top of the page needs to be ammended; I cannot be editing constantly so 'remove this template if the page has not been edited in several hours' (or something like that) is no longer valid, cheers. Wikisaver62 (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit per request

 Done per Tone's recent request on my talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slovenian presidential election, 2007/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be happy to review for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is good, but will need work for FA standards

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

• Why do you have the detail about the referendum regarding insurance? That seems superfluous to the subject of the article. Otherwise the lead is fine. H1nkles (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Background

• Quote, "The disagreements moved from issues of domestic politics in October 2006, when Drnovšek publicly criticised the treatment of the Strojans, a Roma family whose neighborhood had forced them to relocate, which in turn had subjected them to police supervision and limitation of movement." This sentence is poorly written. It is a runon sentence. You say the disagreements moved from issues of domestic politics, where did they move to? What issues did the disputes revolve around other than domestic politics?
• Quote, "After years of speculation about his health and intentions, Janez Drnovšek announced in February 2007 that he would not run for president again." This is a stub paragraph and should be combined or expanded.
• There are quite a few little grammatical errors in this section. I fixed some of them but you should go through this section very carefully and look for missing words, punctuation etc. H1nkles (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Cadidates

Regarding Requirements for candidacy

This subsection is fine. H1nkles (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Leading candidates

• There are several very short/stub paragraphs in this section. I consider stub paragraphs to be ones with one or perhaps two sentences. For example, "Early polls indicated that Peterle, who had been campaigning for months and had cultivated the image of a "man of the people", would win the election in a runoff against Türk or possibly Gaspari." Please consider either expanding or combining them.
• Pictures are good and the caption under each is very informative. H1nkles (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Other candidates

This section is fine, wikilinking spoof is a little odd but I can see rationale for doing it. H1nkles (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding First round campaign

I can't find much wrong with this section. It looks pretty good. H1nkles (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding First round results and reactions

This section is fine as well, I did some minor grammatical edits but otherwise it's ok and the map is great. H1nkles (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Runoff campaign

• "The new strategy appeared to backfire, and the polls before the runoff predicted that Türk would win between 63% and over 70% of the vote." Another stub paragraph. Please combine or expand.
• Check the licensing of the photo in this section. It does not appear to be formatted correctly. I'm not an expert on photo licensing so I may be incorrect. Please review and either correct or respond here if I am mistaken. H1nkles (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Final results and reactions

• Quote, "The opposition parties said that talk of resignation just weeks before Slovenia took over European Union presidency presidency was irresponsible and unwise...." Presidency is stated twice, is there a reason? H1nkles (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Detailed results

Table is good and sourced. H1nkles (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• Refs. 7, 10-12, and 15-16 need formatting with publisher, date, accessdate, author if available etc.
• Refs. 23-24, and 37 need (in Slovene) tags.
• Check spelling, grammar and prose in Ref 45, there are some issues in there (like a run on sentence). H1nkles (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall Review

• This article is excellent!
• There are only a couple of fixes that are preventing me from passing it as is:

• You need to check the licensing on the photo of the ballot in the "Runoff Campaign" section.
• You need to format some of your references a little better.
• You should do a thorough copy edit to catch a few grammatical issues, I tried to fix as many as I saw but there were quite a few so it would be good to do another comb over the article.
• Fix the stub paragraphs as well.

• The rest of my suggestions are really to push the article further up. It is a very well-written article and could one day requalify as an FA.
• I'll give you a week to consider the above suggestions and then I'll do a final review unless you need less or more time. Just let me know. If you disagree with anything I've said here please respond and I'll be happy to consider your rationale. H1nkles (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It will take me some time to go through all of them and I am a bit busy these days so maybe I'll need more than a week. I'll let you know when I'm done. Greetings. --Tone 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response, this article is painfully close, if you can get the references fixed and look at the licensing of the photo those are the only two things that would kill it for me. The rest I can live with. I'll check back next week. H1nkles (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally I found some time to make the corrections you suggested. Those unformatted refs were added after my last detailed check but are fixed now. Licence of the photo is fine now. I found some more mistakes and fixed them, probably they are some more but hard to find. Regarding the referendum in the intro, it was on the same day and should be included somewhere in the article. I considered putting it in the second round section but somehow does not really fit... It is important, however. I have merged the stub paragraphs with previous paragraphs, in my opinion they could stand for themselves but if the general idea of having stub paragraphs is bad, this is probably the best solution. I think this is more or less all, remind me if I have forgotten anything. If passed as a GA, I will probably renominate it as a FA after some time, maybe I find some other things that can be improved. Thanks for your help. --Tone 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article is great and I will pass it as GA with pleasure. To get it to FA you'll probably have to get some more citations in English if possible. Well done and keep up the good work!! H1nkles (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Tone 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Slovenian presidential election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090819145327/http://www.eubusiness.com:80/news-eu/1195512437.8 to http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1195512437.8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)