Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Slovenian presidential election, 2007/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:36, 23 September 2008 [1].

Slovenian presidential election, 2007

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tone


This article has been considerably expanded and improved since the GA nomination. After receiving a positive opinion at peer review, I have decided to nominate it for a FA. Any possible issues can be addressed in a day or two. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 15:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

  • The first impression that I got was that the lead is too short.
  • In some sections, there are one-sentence paragraphs. Combine them together or add info to flesh them out.
  • Overbolding all over the place. Why are the names of people bolded? Boldface is only used for the first occurence of the article topic. See MOS:BOLD
  • The prose needs work. Examples:
    • "The last opinion polls published before the first round predicted that Peterle would win 40% of the vote and go to the run-off against either Türk or Gaspari, both at 20-25%, with most polls predicting a substantially larger share for Türk." Run-on sentence, awkward sentence structure, MOS breach (en dash instead of hyphen between the percentages).
    • "They particularly opposed the change since the voters from abroad seem to favor right-wing parties so they could change the result in favour of Peterle if the result was close." Unnecessary words (particulary), repetition (result), wrong connector (use because instead of since); that's not even all the issues.
    • "The first round, held on October 21, brought unexpected results." Unexpected is POV, and seems redundant; the next sentence says "Contrary to predictions", which means the same thing.
  • Some dates are linked and some aren't. Note that date-linking is now deprecated by the MOS (see MOS:UNLINKYEARS).

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your comments, I have addressed some and I have questions regarding the rest:

  • what else do you think should be included in the lead? It summarizes the elections, other things would probably make it out of focus.
  • I have combined some of the paragraphs. Where I let them, I feel it is appropriate to leave it this way since they address different things (such as in the candidates section).
  • I have removed bolding. No dates are linked, except for those in the references, that are linked because of the code and those in the results template, it seems to be a standard there (see Elections in 2007).
  • I don't think the word unexpected is POV, the article says that the result was very far from what the pools had predicted, thus unexpected (this is sourced). As well, "Contrary to predictions", for further explanation why it was unexpected.
  • Particularly is not redundant, this was the main reason why they opposed. I have corrected the dash and split the long sentence in two. I was looking for a good phrase to replace "so they could change the result in favour of Peterle if the result was close" but I can't find it. Perhaps you could help me on that?
  • Do you see any other problems? If you point them out, I can fix them. --Tone 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it needs a good copy-edit.

  • MOSLINK discourages sequential links; can you relocate "France Cukjati", and please put a stub there so it's not red right at the opening.
  • An audit of commas throughout is required. There aren't enough.
  • "and in practice his powers are limited to"—Women are barred from office?
    • All the presidents have been men so far, no limitations otherwise. What do you recomend, gender neutral they or his/her or to use the word President insetad of the pronoun? --Tone 20:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, unlike the government which is chosen by the Parliament elected through proportional representation, the president is directly elected by the majority of Slovenian voters, which gives the office a measure of moral authority." POV and logic problem. Just why is the former lacking in some moral authority that the president has? Is it "moral", in any case?
  • Comma should not finish a link.
  • "The previous presidential election, held in 2002, brought"—why not "In 2002, the previous presidential election brought".
  • First pic: who is Janezdrilc? If a Wikipedian, please link to his/her user page. If not, some way of identifying/contacting this person should be specified, surely? Otherwise, this might be just a fake name. What are the Commons rules on this? Tony (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed all your comments, except for the commas. I'd appreciate some help on this one. --Tone 10:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could "reactions" include reactions outside this very limited sphere? Did any Slovenian interest group have anything about the results? What of neighboring countries? This (international reactions) is an aspect that tends to be overlooked in election articles. Circeus (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, give me a day or two on this one. I can probably find something useful. --Tone 21:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added international reaction. --Tone 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few remarks:

  • The "requirements for candidacy" subsection needs to be worked into the rest of the text. I suggest moving the generalia to the top of the "candidates" section, and explaining how each of the candidates fulfilled the requirements when the candidate is mentioned.
  • It is unclear from the article why Rožman case mattered - the missing info is that the case was annulled, not overturned, so in normal circumstances there would be a retrial. But, since the bishop was long dead, there could be no retrial, which effectively legally rehabilitated him without an attempt to establish the truth. (A similar tactic was used by the right-wing attorney general in the early 1990s, where he would restart the cases against convicted WWII war criminals and then abandon them before trial.)
  • Now that we removed the "moral authority" thing, there's no indication in the article that the presidential election matters much in Slovenia, nor any explanation why.

Zocky | picture popups 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try with a shuffle of the candidates paragraph. Regarding Rožman, do you have any sources for what you say (I know the story but I had some problems with detailed sourcing so I left this reduced to the basic fact - Rožman's process got annulled ant that made some people unhappy and this had effects for Peterle. By the way, didn't you write that paragraph initially?) Regarding moral authority, Tony1 marked this as POV and logic problem. In fact, nowhere is written that the president has a moral authority, this is made up by media. What is written in the constitution is that the President is the Suppreme commander and that he appoints some officials. (as well, it's not written that he has mostly a ceremonial function but since in Slovenia the Prime minister makes the big decisions, I left this in). In this regard, the elections are already important since the president is one of the two positions that is chosen with elections (the second being the parliament). Or you have any suggestions how to improve it? --Tone 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please note non-English language sources in the footnotes. It appears that most of the sources are in Slovenian (which isn't in itself a problem, but it's nice to tell the folks that click on links that they aren't in English)
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 40 you need a source for the statment "is a very devout practicing Catholic"
  • Current ref 41 has a bare URL as the source. At the very least, you need a title for the link, the publisher and a last access date.
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave the other two sources out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a journal from Vienna, the second one is a reknown Serbian news source and the third one is a portal dedicated to EU, seems reliable to me. I can fix the rest of the issues on Monday, I hope it's ok. --Tone 07:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least for B92, that would be an overkill. It's universally known and well respected radio/TV station/internet news provider in the region. Zocky | picture popups 15:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. One is backed by an agency, here, the other one is Europe's leading independent online business information service about the European Union. The second one should meet all standards, if you are not happy with the first one, I can probably find some replacement sources. Regarding the references 41 and 42, I have removed one (not vital anyway) and fixed the second one. --Tone 23:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{sl icon}} added wehre needed, as well. --Tone 23:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the icon with the parameter language=Slovene. I have also fixed some other refs and replaced Parliament with National Assembly as Parliament is an unofficial term that may refer to different entities (see {{Politics of Slovenia}}). I have some comments regarding the images:
  • Image:Danilo Turk.jpg has been uploaded to Commons, however the permission to use the image under the licence CC-BY-SA-2.5 remains unconfirmed. I'd like to see that permission confirmed using the OTRS system as described at commons:OTRS.
  • It also seems redundant to have two photos used in the article twice (a photo of Türk and a photo of Peterle). All the photos of the candidates could be included in the infobox. --Eleassar my talk 09:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, what's the point of that German reference? Is there no equivalent English (or at least Slovene) alternative? --Eleassar my talk 10:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the gallery, I put it there intentionally because I wanted to have a list of candidates with basic details. This occurs often in elections articles and I think it illustrates the topic better. In the top infobox, there are just two images since there was a run-off. If we had photos of all candidates, I would actually prefer having them all in the gallery but since we don't there are just the front ones (as the article is sectioned, as well). Regarding the German reference, it was there before I started reworking the article, I left it for the sake of source plurality. In fact, there is one more German reference but that one I quote directly. --Tone 11:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets have it in a gallery then. As for the German references, the first is simply redundant with such a simple uncontested statement. For the second one, it's ok in my opinion but should be supplemented with the quote of the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, as described in WP:V#Non-English sources. --Eleassar my talk 11:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove the first German reference, it actually is redundant. Regarding the second one, you think I should put in the footnote Als einer der wenigen slowenischen Politiker mit internationaler Bekanntheit galt er in Hinblick auf Sloweniens nahende EU-Präsidentschaft als Idealbesetzung. and translate it? I don't really think this is neccessary, especially because in that case the same would need to be done for all Slovenian references and that would be too much of a mess. --Tone 11:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should do so (translation of the whole sentence is not necessary) as this is a "direct quote" and "likely to be challenged". There are only two such quotes yet:
  • "under the given circumstances" his result was "not that bad"
  • "certain topics" that were brought up during the campaign by "hidden centres of power";
so I don't think this would need to be done for all Slovene references.
Also, reference 29 is a dead link so it's not clear to me where does the "man of the people" description originate from. --Eleassar my talk 12:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you do that, please? I don't know what way of format I would use here. I can see the reference 29, it is working... --Tone 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still get the error message: Network Timeout. Could you insert another link here? --Eleassar my talk 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is working fine for me... maybe you have problems with some settings? --Tone 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Slovenian_presidential_election,_2007/archive1&oldid=1077422210"