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

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 12:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 09:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this up.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! This will be a long one. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Any updates? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not doing anything but also I was clearing other GA reviews first before getting back to this.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just wanted to know if this review was not abandoned. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• and the parliamentary election was the only one to be held – and the only parliamentary election to be held...
• SPS inherited a significant amount of political infrastructure upon its formation, giving it an immeasurable advantage over the opposition, which lacked financing and infrastructure. – I think which lacked financing and infrastructure. is unnecessary. Also I'm unsure of the use of "immeasurable" unless its quoted by sources
• The possibility of orchestrating an election boycott due to unequal conditions was promoted by SPO and Ivan Đurić of Union of Reform Forces during the campaign but ultimately dropped after the government agreed to most of their demands in late November. – The SPO and Ivan Đurić of Union of Reform Forces during the campaign called for a boycott over unequal conditions but ultimately dropped...
• but eventually it conceded. – remove "it"
• After the elections, Dragutin Zelenović became prime minister; he was shortly thereafter met with mass protests in Belgrade, during which Drašković was detained, the Yugoslav Wars, and the establishment of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992. I suggest splitting up to: After the elections, Dragutin Zelenović became prime minister. His tenure saw Drašković's detention during the mass protests in Belgrade, the outbreak of the Yugoslav Wars and the establishment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992.
  • All done.

• Curious, but why is it necessary in this scope of the article to describe the renaming of parties? As far as we are concerned, it has been "League of Communists of Serbia" during much of communist rule. I might just be concerned that the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was the ruling party. Maybe like: After World War II, the Communist Party (later the League of Communists of Yugoslavia) consolidated power in Yugoslavia, transforming the country into a socialist state... with Serbia having the Communist Party of Serbia, later renamed the League of Communists of Serbia (SKS)
• until being appointed president of SKS in May 1986, upon the proposal Remove comma
• Stambolić was removed from his role as president of Serbia – "from his role" is redundant
• who favoured confederated Yugoslavia. – who favoured a confederated Yugoslavia
• The government, however, had a meeting with opposition parties to discuss the implementation of a multi-party system – The government, however, had discussed with the opposition parties on the implementation...
  • Also remove semicolon and just have that sentence by itself.
• The newly adopted constitution effectively abolished the autonomy that SAP Kosovo had. – remove the "had" at the end. ...effectively abolished SPA Kosovo's autonomy.
  • All done.

• could have consisted of multiple – could consist of multiple...
• A candidate could have been proposed by one or more political parties - A candidate could be nominated by one or more political parties.
• A citizens group, according to the law enacted in 1990, is a political label used to identify a group of 100 citizens bound by an agreement willing to take part in an election. – I think you can remove "is a political label used to identify" like you can rewrite: A citizens groups, under the law enacted in 1990, is a group of 100 citizens bound by an agreement to participate in an election.
• RIK could have denied a candidate – "could deny" a candidate. I have a feeling you are translating from Serbian to English and there's some odd "could have [verb]" which could just be "could [verb]". Check for all similar instances.
• For the paragraph beginning with: A campaign for an election could have lasted 30 to 90 days..., shift it earlier before the discussion of candidate nomination.
• The signatures dispute subsection could have been moved during the "constitution referendum" discussion.
• The table below lists political parties elected to the Assembly of SR Serbia after the 1989 parliamentary election. – The sentence is a bit unnecessary. It could be the table title instead with the citations.
• I will like to ask though how do the opposition parties of Serbia came into existence under communist rule.
  • All done. Opposition parties came to existence largely due as a reaction to the Revolutions of 1989.
    • I think mentioning how the opposition parties came to existence would be essential given this is also the first multi-party elections in Serbia. I guess the new constitution also allowed new parties to come into the picture.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact that entire chunk of parties, from The registry of political parties was established with the passage of the Law... onwards could be shifted to the previous subsection on political parties.
• Also for this entire chunk: The three main political parties in Serbia at the time of the election were SPS, SPO, and DS.[63] Given that SPS was formed as a merger of SKS and the Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia, it inherited a significant amount of political infrastructure, as well as material and financial assets.[37][68][69] With such material and with SPS retaining influence over major industries, it was able to maintain its dominance over political events in Serbia.[37][70] Milošević was the president of SPS.[31]: 143 [71] DS was founded in December 1989, when a group of intellectuals announced the revival of the interwar Democratic Party
• Drašković was initially affiliated with the Saint Sava Association, then with SNO. – Drašković was first affiliated with the Saint Sava Association before joining the Serbian Renewal Movement (SNO).
• which were ultimately quashed – would say "suppressed" instead of "quashed"
• had 32 contestants in total – "in total" is redundant
  • All done.

• was worth approximately US$160,000,000 – would say US$160 million
• The June protest in Belgrade drew between 30,000 and 40,000 people. – why mention the June protest when the campaign started in September? Might shifted earlier to the background especially when the new constitution was enacted
• By the end of the campaign, the Serbian opposition, Croatia, Slovenia, and Western countries viewed Drašković as a more acceptable option to Milošević. - Might rewrite: viewed Drašković as more acceptable [as president] than Milošević.
• For the original quotations in Serbian, I might actually write as a hatnote instead.
  • From personal experience, I prefer having them in brackets than hatnotes, so I'll leave them as it is.
• Studio B and Radio B92, however, only aired in the Belgrade region. – Both, however, were limited to the Belgrade region.
• The media portrayed the opposition as... – You can use passive voice to avoid repetition. For example: On the other hand, the opposition was portrayed as...
• The government referred to opposition politicians – The government called opposition politicians
• RTB allowed candidates to present their programmes on television for 90 minutes – Candidates were given 90 minutes of television airtime on RTB.
  • Actually, I might have misunderstood. Do you mean the candidates can introduce television programmes? Or is it they are given airtime for their campaign messages?
    • Latter.
• with the first 30 allocated minutes at candidate's discretion – what does this mean exactly?
• which received backlash from the public So were the public outraged by the media's interpretation or Drašković's words? Also, I might split the previous sentence and have the original Serbian quotation as a hatnote.
• opposition parties were focused on ideological themes. – remove "were"
• between 5 and 6 December – I guess this must be the incident date?
• Despite this, the rhetoric of SPS was relied heavily on a combination of nationalism and social demagogy – Nevertheless, SPS relied heavily on a combination of nationalism and social demagogy in its rhetoric.
• such as the claim that there is a United States plot to... – such as the claim of a United States plot to...
• advocating a multi-party Assembly of Yugoslavia accord. A what accord?
• He was later released but quickly sent to prison again on 23 October for 45 days for attempting to recruit volunteers for the Log Revolution in Croatia – He was released on [date] but soon re-imprisoned on October 23 for 45 days for attempting to recruit volunteers for Croatia's Log Revolution.
  • Curious, also was that charge true or a trumped-up charge? Might just be "alleged"
• DS condemned his punishment to prison. Like they viewed it as unfair?
  • The source only mentions that they condemned his punishment. It does not go into detail.
• They were also concerned that vote fraud would occur in the election if they were to participate. – They were also concerned about potential vote fraud if they chose to participate.
• By 25 November, the number of parties that announced a boycott had risen to approximately 40. – By 25 November, around 40 parties had announced their decision to boycott the election.
• However, the government declined to reschedule the elections for 23 December and to allow citizens of Serbia who live abroad to vote – However, the government refused to postpone the elections to 23 December or permit overseas Serbians to vote.
• SPO came under criticism from Ante Marković, the prime minister of Yugoslavia, and his SRSJ in early November, claiming that SPO was a bigger threat than Milošević. – In early November, Yugoslav Prime Minister Ante Marković and his SRSJ criticized the SPO, labeling it a greater threat than Milošević.
• Actually also curious, but I wonder how does Yugoslavia as a whole view the elections. It's probably something you could raise in the background, since I find the article is pretty Serbia-centric (not wrong, but also at this time Yugoslavia hadn't broken up. So it's like talking about state elections but not noting observations from the central or federal government, especially how important is this election.)
  • While reading through the sources, I sadly did not spot what other republics thought of the election.
• No other issues for the rather extensive Campaign section. Personally I might split the timeline as its own section instead. I also saw that for the 2022 Serbian general election you also did subsections for the parties' campaigns; I might do that and merge with the slogans part.
  • All done.

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied with most of the above changes. I still personally think the Serbian quotations should be in hatnotes, cos I guess that's why there's quite a high body word count for this article. That said, it won't be my dealbreaker whether to pass or not.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 170 international journalists and 65 members of monitoring organisations were present to observe the elections – I will try to reword to avoid the number at the start of the article, maybe like The election observers included 170 international journalists and 65 members from.... Also, are there examples of such monitoring organisations?
  • Sadly, there are not.
• This section has many repeated points. I've rewritten it to summarise the common points made by the various observers, but you are free to reword and rearrange the citations.
• The claims included ballot stuffing, abuse of postal votes, manipulation in vote counting, and attempts to undermine the credibility of the elections. – I've split it from that long clause but I will need the relevant citation.
  • Done.

• were won by the incumbent government party – just "incumbent" would do, as it would imply they are the government and the party.
• The Republic Bureau of Statistics published full results of the elections in January 1991. – The Republic Bureau of Statistics published the full results in January 1991.
• There were 7,033,610 citizens who had the right to vote in the presidential elections – ...citizens who were eligible to vote in the presidential elections.
• Also similarly for There were 7,036,303 citizens who had the right to vote in the first round of the parliamentary elections
• he turnout for the election was 71%. – I just note there was a decrease. Maybe you might mention about the decrease from the previous election. I guess the Albanian boycott might be a factor.
  • This is already mentioned in the parliamentary elections section.
• Observers saw this as a shock, considering that they expected that Drašković would receive a strong showing. – Observers were shocked, as they had expected Drašković to receive strong support.
• The third-placed was Đurić, who won slightly more than 5% of the popular vote. – Đurić came third place, only winning just over 5% of the popular vote.
• Milošević, Drašković, and Đurić received more votes than their parties, respectively. – I suppose this refers to the parliamentary results.
• A second round was not held, considering that Milošević won a majority of the popular vote. – As Milošević won a majority of the popular vote, a second round was not held.
• Despite being short of winning 50% of the popular vote, SPS received 78% of seats in the National Assembly due to the first-past-the-post system – Despite not winning the popular vote...
• The second-placed was SPO, which won 19 seats, while the third-placed was DS, which won 7 seats. – The SPO, in second place, won 19 seats, while the DS, in third place, won 7 seats.
• did not garner a lot of support in comparison with other post-communist countries. – "compared to" rather than "in comparison with"
• Goati argued that SPS won because Serbia was an economically underdeveloped country and because of its electoral system, which resulted in SPS gaining 194 seats despite obtaining less than 50% of the popular vote – Goati argued that the SPS won due to Serbia's economic underdevelopment and its electoral system. I personally think the second half is unnecessary given you already said so in the beginning of this section.
• A by-election occurred in June 1991 – "was held" instead of "occurred.
• In this election, Šešelj of SRS, Pekić of DS, Jovan Marjanović of SPO, and Radoš Karaklajić of SPS were the candidates. – Šešelj of SRS, Pekić of DS, Jovan Marjanović of SPO, and Radoš Karaklajić of SPS were the election's candidates.
• Regarding SPO voters, most of them came from middle-sized cities and the Central Serbia region. SPO voters were male and high-school educated, and a majority of them saw themselves on the political right, with 26% of respondents identifying themselves as centrist. – Shorten to Most SPO voters, primarily male, high-school educated, and from middle-sized cities in Central Serbia, identified as politically right-leaning, with 26% considering themselves centrist.
  • All done.

I don't find problems with the "reactions" section, though usually here there would be international reactions like other leaders congratulating the new government and leader.

• Considering that 10 members of parliament (MPs) were needed to form a parliamentary group, only SPS and SPO were able to form a parliamentary group on their own – Since 10 MPs were needed to form a parliamentary group, only the SPS and SPO were able to do so.
• DS, VMDK, and several independents united to form a group on their own – ...united to form their own group.
• Considering that the government of Serbia wanted JNA to intervene, Borisav Jović persuaded other constituent republics to allow JNA to intervene by claiming that demonstrators were trying to take over the Yugoslav General Staff building and that the police were broken up and could not take care of the protest – As the Serbian government sought JNA intervention, Borisav Jović convinced other constituent republics by claiming that demonstrators were attempting to seize the Yugoslav General Staff building and that the police had been dispersed and were unable to manage the protest.
• Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina were opposed to the intervention of JNA in the protest – ...Bosnia and Herzegovina opposed JNA's intervention in the protest
• The stances of Slovenia and Croatia moderated in early 1991 mainly due to economic factors – Croatia and Slovenia moderated their stances...
• Milošević declared that a "third Yugoslavia", including Serbia, Montenegro, and Krajina, would be formed – Milošević declared the formation of a "third Yugoslavia" which included Serbia, Montenegro, and Krajina
• Considering that the opposition was not satisfied with the results it received in the 1990 elections and that it believed that it had much more support from the general public, they called for the government to hold a snap election – Dissatisfied with the results of the 1990 elections and believing they had greater public support, the opposition called for the government to hold a snap election.
• ...and the state of the media. – This needs to be a bit more specific. Like, the unfair treatment of Yugoslav media against the opposition?
  • All done.

Did other minor edits. Will do a source spot check, but I don't expect much issues given you are primarily using local and academic sources.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewed per this revision
• Actually just a bit of a query: how reliable are Serbian sources on the election? Would they tend to be in favour of the election's conduct? I say there's a nice balance against international sources who are critical of how the elections were held.
  • They're reliable. Even Borba covered the elections independently at this point. Others like Vreme, Istinomer, and Danas are also reliable. At the time of the elections, Politika was pro-government, though sources that I've used are not from that period and rather cpver the election more independently.
• Refs 11, 13, 44, 50, 118, 120, 125, 128, 134 check out
• and called on their supporters to boycott the referendum if the demand was not met I can't exactly find it in Ref 44. I suppose it's in Ref 43?
  • Yes. Quote from p12: "Opposition parties, which demanded that elections be held before enactment of a new constitution had called on supporters to boycott the referendum".
• I can't exactly find the list of parties in Ref 69. I suppose it's the image?
  • You can download the PDF file. Parties are listed on the right side of p2266 and left side of p2267.
• Some of the links are dead at the time of reviewing, such as refs 128 and 134 from istinomer.rs. I ran the article through IABot, and managed to check plenty of time via the web archive.
  • Today's a general strike in Serbia, so Istinomer is down. Their articles should be up back tomorrow.
• In comparison, the elections in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia were won by anti-communists. I can't really find mentions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia in ref 173. I supposed it's stated in other sources?
  • Bosnia is mentioned in Ref 129, Slovenia and Croatia in Ref 172, and Macedonia in Ref 173.
• I shall assume good faith for generally non-english, offline and book sources I can't access.

That's all. Putting on hold.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright satisfied with the changes. Passed.

On the other hand, are you able to reach out to me on discord (@.conqueror_of_fanfics)? I wish to discuss on how to revamp 2025 Singaporean general election in preparation for the upcoming election.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]