Lots of work has been made on this article since the last FAC attempt. I believe all the issues raised during the last nomination have been addressed, the article went through Guild of Copy Editors polishing and passed a GA review. I believe it is finally ready for a FA now. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Sources in Slovenian are from mainstream media, so is the one in German. --Tone 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
External links are up to speed (checked with the toolbox checker tool)
The dabs are not up to speed [there is one that needs to be fixed] (checked with the toolbox checker tool)
Ref formatting is up to speed (checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Media Review - All images free; I moved one image to Commons for you. Good work. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 01:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a ballot, an official document issued by the electoral comission, i.e. the state authorities. IMO, this doesn't require such a credit. Zocky | picture popups 18:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - not a show stopper by any means, but it would be nice if the article explained what finally happened with the votes from abroad, which were regarded as potentially contentious (and favouring the right wing) before the election. Zocky | picture popups 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about it. This source says that Peterle actually got some more of those votes than Turk but since the difference was so big, they didn't change anything. If I put it in the first round paragraph, it does not fit well but if I put it in the final results one, it still does not fit too well. The thing is that Peterle got 1106 and Türk 963 votes from the embassies while the ballots sent by mail were 2587 for Peterle and 2077 for Türk. Nowhere close to tip the scales. Do you have any suggestions how to include that? --Tone 20:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Many of the issues I brought up in the last FAC have not been fixed. The prose needs a major overhaul. There are a lot of small grammatical errors. Listed below are examples only.
There are capitalization inconsistencies. Sometimes the article capitalizes "Government", "Prime Minister" and "President" when there are no names behind them; sometimes it doesn't. (I realize that there are occasionally times when this is necessary, but most inconsistencies here don't appear to be.)
"more than good" is not good prose
Some of the prose is still pretty clunky.
Where possible, the prose needs to be tightened. Examples:
"The disagreements however escalated " - why "however"?; that should probably be removed
watch for repetitive phrasing - "rejected President's candidates for the Governor of the Bank of Slovenia, beginning with the rejection of "
"Jelinčič had already run for the office " - why already? "had run" already tells us that this was int he far past. Perhaps you are thinking of "previously"?
In some cases, the grammar appears to be off. sometimes, it looks like words are missing. Examples:"the Roma family Strojans", "rejected President's candidates", "revealing, among other,". Also, check for verb agreement - "One of them were " should be "one of them was" etc
The Leading candidates section has several two-sentence paragraphs. Such small paragraphs tend to break up the flow of the section; I encourage you to combine and/or rewrite them as necessary to help the section flow better.
The article doesn't say whether presidential elections are held on a consistent cycle (every 5 years) of if they are called whenever the government wants to call them. Perhaps this could be included in the background section?
I think the background section may go into too much detail on the political workings in the previous presidency. It doesn't appear that all of that is completely relevant to this article.
I'd combine the two sections on the first round of the elections
Need a citation at the end of every sentence with a quotation in it. Example that does not have a cite "Prime Minister Janez Janša blamed Peterle's poor showing on certain topics that were brought up during the campaign by "hidden centres of power". "
Image stacking leads to large white space after heading Runoff campaign and before the text
The lead still contains a lot of information about a referendum; this is not mentioned at all (that I saw) in the body of the article.
I'll have a look at the prose once more, I think the guild of copyeditors did a good work but there may be some details here and there yet to fix. Otherwise, I believe I have already fixed most of the issues you mentioned last time. Too bad the last FAC was closed just after you made your comments, I hope we can work it out this time.
Capitalization: when president refers to the function, it's lower case. When it refers to Drnovšek, it's upper case, isn't it the way it's supposed to be? Otherwise, no problem with fixing. Lower or upper case for all, what's better?
Maybe a good idea to add details about election in the requirements section instead, I'll do that.
I believe that the background section needs to go into details because it is the confrontation between Drnovšek and the government that set the stage for the election and the atmosphere surrounding it. I wouldn't want to cut it. It is relevant, more or less all of it.
I think we had only one section about the first round before but then decided to make two instead. I find it better because the second round and results are also separate. And the focus of each section is different.
There are citations for each sentence with "". The one you mention is ref 48, at the end of the sentence (because it refers to the whole sentence, I didn't want to put it in the middle and repeat again but it can be done).
I don't see any white space because of the image stacking. Maybe you are using another browser? What do you recommend in this case?
There is now a section on the referendum in results section as well. Again, the referendum needs to be mentioned because of the consequences both election and referendum had for the government.
So, I believe most of the issues are fixed already actually... I'd appreciate further comments. --Tone 17:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)