Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic Party (Serbia)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2023 [1].

Democratic Party (Serbia)

Nominator(s): Vacant0 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a political party in Serbia. It was a member of 5 governments of Serbia but has served in opposition for much of its existence. DS has a long history, with figures such as Dragoljub Mićunović, Zoran Đinđić, Boris Tadić, and Dragan Đilas serving as its presidents. So far, this is the largest Serbian political party article I've written, so I've decided to nominate it for a FAC. It was copy-edited by @Voorts: in May and I listed the article for a peer review in June but received no comments. This is my first FAC nomination. Vacant0 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

Hi Vacant0, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

working (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stevan Kragujevic, Dragoljub Micunovic Skupstina 90tih (cropped).jpg, File:Boris Tadić, 2004 (cropped).jpg - what's the evidence that the copyright holder released it? (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~File:Бојан Пајтић (cropped).jpg is this own work or not?~~ OTRS verified

File:Zoran Živković (cropped).jpg, File:Zoran Djindjic Cropped.jpg source link doesn't work. Is there an archived link to verify licensing

Flag and logo should be under the threshold of originality in the US, but I have no idea whether it is in Serbia and commons provides no info on that. (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the original uploader of that photo of Mićunović. It is not listed on Kragujević's website so I don't know where the photo was originally obtained from. I've added the archived URL for Tadić's photo from 2004. It does not show the thumbnail but it confirms that it existed on the website. Both of these already have the proper permission attached to them.

I've added the author for Pajtić's photo. For Zoran Živković (cropped).jpg, I've added the URL that redirects to the archived website that confirms its existence though the photo itself has probably been removed (it cannot be accessed when clicked on the link) from the website for unknown reasons. You can also see that here: http://arhiva.mc.rs/pretraga-fotografija.1965.html?photoQS=zoran+%C5%BEivkovi%C4%87&od=&do=&submitted=true. For Đinđić's photo, I've added the source and permission.

I did not upload the logo and the flag on Commons but I could upload them here if they do not meet the criteria to stay on Commons. Vacant0 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? Where does it say that the Zivkovic file is uploaded with CC licensing? Same with the Tadic photo, on the website you link I don't see any mention of CC licensing. (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Živković's photo, I assume that the OTRS license (2012011710005331) from Medija centar confirms this. For Tadić, this permission from DS (it is in the summary) allows the photos to be published under the GNU-FDL license. Vacant0 (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're relying on OTRS permissions, the appropriate message should be in the image description of the photo you are using—not just the original, non-cropped version. (t · c) buidhe 02:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added it. Vacant0 (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

To the subsection titles like "1994–2000" you should add a brief description, like "1994–2000: the Đinđić years" or whatever. Otherwise the divisions are completely arbitrary.
The landscape pics of the conventions should be enlarged.—indopug (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Vacant0 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

After more than three weeks this nomination has attracted little interest and little movement towards a consensus to support. Unless this changes over the next two or three days, I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have commented so far and I have already addressed their issues. Is inviting editors to give their opinions allowed? Vacant0 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've ended up leaving comments on few user talk pages in hope of receiving some feedback for this nomination. There are no related FACs to this one so I do not know who to actually ask to leave feedback. Vacant0 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am regretfully going to archive this, as there seems to be no sign that a consensus to promote is forming. Given the limited feedback it has attracted, the usual two-week hiatus will not apply.

Some general advice which may help with your next FAC nomination: Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.