Talk:Serbian Chetnik Movement (1990)/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Serbian Chetnik Movement (1990)/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Serbian Chetnik Movement (1990)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|Vacant0}} 12:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Боки (talk · contribs) 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This article provides a comprehensive and well-rounded view of its subject, but a few adjustments could help further improve its quality:

• Well-researched content: The article is rich in detail, offering useful insights and thorough coverage of the topic. Most sections provide a clear explanation of the key points.
• Good referencing: The references are reliable and well-cited, providing solid sources for readers to verify the information presented.
• Organized structure: The structure of the article is easy to follow, and the sections are appropriately divided. This allows readers to navigate the content smoothly.

• Consistency in tone: In some parts of the article, the tone shifts between formal and informal. Standardizing the tone across the entire piece will make the article more cohesive.
• Could you point out where this occurs in the article? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Vacant0 For example, He became a cause célèbre in Belgrade. More neutral phrasing might be: "He gained significant attention in Belgrade." ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 16:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{done}} Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Add more visuals: The inclusion of charts or images would help further illustrate the points made, especially in the more complex sections. These visuals could also improve reader engagement.
• Unsure what complex sections, but I could add the emblem of SČP used during Yugoslav Wars to the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Vacant0 That would be a good addition, just making it a bit more visual. ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 16:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{done}} Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Expand on recent developments: The article could benefit from more coverage of recent developments or current trends related to the subject matter. Adding a "Current Trends" or "Recent Developments" section would be a valuable addition.
• What recent developments? The party ceased to exist in 1991 and the article already covers its history. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Vacant0 One thing that could be added, for example, is political influence such as whether remnants of SČP ideology persist in modern Serbian politics, especially in parties like the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) or nationalist factions. ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 16:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{working}} Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{done}} Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

=== Conclusion ===

Overall, this article meets the standards for a Good Article, but with a few adjustments in clarity, tone, and additional references, it would be even stronger. Keep up the good work!

• Did you perform a spotcheck? They are a requirement for GA reviews. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:Have you by any chance used an AI tool to generate this review? The style of the review looks like it's AI generated. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Боки}} Do you intend on responding to my questions? If not, I'll ask to reinsert the article back into the GAN backlog or for someone else to take over the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Vacant0 No AI tool has been used in this. ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 16:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Vacant0 No, I just wrote my opinion, sorry. I am used to Serbian Wikipedia where we just write our opinion about the article. ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 16:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::We have a criteria for good articles. You can read the guide for reviewing good articles to learn how to review articles. If you want to continue the review, I'd recommend you to read it and then come back to this review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Vacant0 My suggestions are all minor recommendations and I did mention at the end of my review that overall, this article meets the standards and with the adjustments I recommended it will only be stronger. ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 17:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello {{ping|Боки}}. Is there anything else to fix? Cheers. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Vacant0 No, all the suggestions I wrote were the only suggestions considered. ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 14:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Okay, thanks. You can follow the instructions for finishing the GA review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Pinging {{ping|Боки}}. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::::@Vacant0 Sorry, was busy working on another article and did not get a chance to finish. All done now ! ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 18:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::No problem. Thanks for the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)