Talk:2007 Slovenian presidential election

:GA review (see here for criteria)

{{#if:|

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. :a (prose): {{GAList/check|nay}} b (MoS): {{GAList/check|aye}}
3. :: {{#if: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).|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).|}}
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
5. :a (references): {{GAList/check|}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|}}
6. :: {{#if: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.|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.|}}
7. It is broad in its coverage.
8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|aye}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|nay}}
9. :: {{#if: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?|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?|}}
10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|aye}}
12. :: {{#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
13. It is stable.
14. :No edit wars etc.: {{GAList/check|aye}}
15. :: {{#if: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.|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.|}}
16. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
17. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|}}
18. :: {{#if: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.|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.|}}
19. Overall:
20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|nay}}
21. :: {{#if:I think this article is good, close even, but just not quite there yet.|I think this article is good, close even, but just not quite there yet.|}}