Talk:2021 North Kosovo crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC on categories in the article[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A consensus in this RfC seems to have been reached with no direct objections, now 10 days after the last comment was added. A single category is to be used, which itself is a subcategory of both Protests in Kosovo and Protests in Serbia. This category is currently North Kosovo crisis. Dege31 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent a potential edit war: should this article be in the Protests in Serbia category? Dege31 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slight disagree. I think making it part of that category will encourage uncordial editing on what is and is not Serbia. The protests are not towards the Serbian government, but towards the Kosovan government within Kosovo de-facto regions. Thus, I think it should be kept as is category wise. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CAT the goal of the categories is to facilitate search and browsing. Nothing prevents us from putting it in both categories and probably it will help readers find it more easily. Per the same policy the categories should be uncontroversial, but any decision here would be somewhat controversial and I don't think we should remove categories altogether. Just an idea, maybe create a category for the protests in North Kosovo which would have two parent categories: protests in Serbia and protests in Kosovo? Alaexis¿question? 20:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that just pushes the problem further down the line. While it would be a really lame edit war, the exact same issues could arise on the category you mention. I agree that nothing prevents us from having the article in both categories in theory, but it has already been reverted twice, so I think it ought to be settled so there's a consensus. Dege31 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll support the proposal of Alaexis¿question? , after all. It's clear that this will be an issue with the article- a revert of such a nature happened a third time now, so I think it's better if it's at least moved off-article. Dege31 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, since this is an issue on both sides of the border with Serbia also not recognizing Kosovar license plates. If this were solely inside Kosovo my response would've been different. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

13th October clashes[edit]

Should 13th October clashes be also added as part of 2021 crisis? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/13/kosovo-police-clash-with-ethnic-serbs-during-smuggling-raids
SRofSerbia (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because this article is specifically about the ordeal with license plates. However, if that grows into something larger- hopefully not; this article should probably be renamed to something like "2021 Serbian license plates ban in Kosovo". Dege31 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --InNeed95 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:North Kosovo crisis (2021)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 02:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I will be reviewing this one within the next few days. eviolite (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Though, actually, before I get to anything: @Dege31: per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) and given examples I believe the year should go to the start of the article title, so the article would be called "2021 North Kosovo crisis". What do you think? eviolite (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too, that's how the article had been originally named before someone changed the format. Dege31 (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe has since moved the page. And @Dege31: please ignore the talk message you got that this failed; that's just the bot glitching out because of the move. I'll start my review below. eviolite (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

  • I am not sure if the banner image is usable in the article. Commons doesn't have any info on the threshold of originality in Kosovo so the symbol on it might be copyrighted. I have asked on Commons.
  • Additionally, having photos of the actual crisis would be helpful, but there might not be any free ones available - I checked Voice of America's coverage but they didn't take photos.
    • I have been unable to find such images. I could try searching for some images on social media which allow compatible licenses and ask for the creator's permission, but I'm not sure if I'll find something like this. Dege31 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The colors in the main map are not accessible for colorblind people - I suggest using different colors and also using italics/bold to identify the type of event.
    • I have changed the hues and implemented italics+bold. Dege31 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing:

  • While the reference formatting may need cleanup that is not required for GA since every source is clearly identifiable.
  • Why are UAWire, The Arab Times, and Telegraf reliable? They reference some prominent statements so if possible I would like to see more reliable sources for these.
    • The sources cited to them cover the primary sources, so I don't think there's a problem. Dege31 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tanjug might also be unreliable, but it is only sourcing an image/caption so is not that big of a deal (and as above the image may be copyrighted too.)
    • I have supplanted it with the original report. The image is not copyrighted. Dege31 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, all sources look reliable.
  • Please add inline citations to the end of every sentence with a quote in it; for example in the "Kosovo" subsection you have quotes in three sentences but only a citation after the fourth.

Prose:

  • The prose is nicely non-neutral for a contentious topic like this, and is generally nice to read. I do have some specific comments though:
  • In footnote [a], I don't think both links to International recognition of Kosovo are necessary.
    • There is only one link to it in the footnote. I think you mean the link in the lead. I have removed that one. Dege31 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has acted independently of it until the 2013 Brussels Agreement." Remove "has" and replace "until" with "prior to"
  • "freezing the Brussels Agreement" - how so?
    • Cancelled implementation of the mentioned terms. Dege31 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2011" is a WP:EASTEREGG link and should be removed in my opinion, or reword the sentence to incorporate the link better. So is "Republic of Kosovo (RKS)" - recommend moving that link somewhere else in that sentence.
  • "when it was expected" -> "when it was expected that"
  • Add a comma after "After 14 September 2021"
  • "The KS license plates were also declared invalid by the Government of Kosovo which were used by some vehicles in Kosovo," reword this as it is a bit confusing, consider "The Government of Kosovo also invalidated the KS license plates, which were used by some vehicles in Kosovo"
  • "The motive of the Kosovan government in the ban had been to mirror the former, similar policy of the Serbian Government by which Republic of Kosovo(RKS) license plates had been banned since Kosovo declared independence, and vehicles with RKS license plates in Serbia had to switch them for temporary Serbian plates. Vehicles with Serbian license plates in Kosovo were supposed to, up to the 30 September 2021 Agreement in Brussels, have their Serbian license plates taken off and switched for Kosovar license plates at a government vehicle registration center." These sentences are a bit confusing and unwieldy, also repeating the previous paragraph. I would recommend shortening and simplifying them, perhaps something like "The Kosovan government's ban mirrored the former Serbian policy to ban RKS license plates. Vehicles with Serbian license plates in Kosovo had to have them replaced with Kosovar plates."
  • "costed" -> "cost"
  • "On 23 September 2021 the traffic block consisting of vehicles became 3 kilometres long on the Mitrovica–Raška road in Jarinje." Reword this to avoid passive voice ("The block of vehicles on the Mitrovica–Raška road reached 3 kilometres long on 23 September.")
  • Link Serb List (Kosovo)
  • Change "calm" to "nonviolent" to be clearer.
  • Is there any reason to use the word "allegedly"? See MOS:ALLEGED.
    • Yes. The sources describe it that way. Dege31 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, suggest rewording "On 23 September 2021, the Kosovo Police was accused of injuring three people unrelated to the protests, two seriously, who are now in hospital. Kosovo has denied involvement and says that it's "disinformation"." to "On 23 September 2021, it was reported that the Kosovo Police injured three Serbs who were not protesting, two of whom were hospitalized; the Kosovo Police denied involvement."
  • Explain the abbreviation KFOR (also in the infobox)
  • "fighter jets and helicopters, and tanks," -> "fighter jets, helicopters, and tanks"
  • "Kosovar special police ROSU" I think you can remove ROSU; it's not mentioned in the source and doesn't mean anything to people who don't know what that specifically is.
  • "more KFOR presence" - remove "more"
    • Changed to "more KFOR troops". Dege31 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the section title "Reactions" to "International reactions" since Kosovo and Serbia reactions are above
  • "has criticised the conduct of Kosovo" - remove "has"

Generally some text could do with a copyedit, but I can that and go through some more minor things after this review.

  • I have responded to your comments. Dege31 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dege31: Thank you. I am satisfied with the changes (and people on Commons seem to think the emblem is simple enough) and have done a minor copyedit - feel free to revert if you think they are not helpful. (I see now that the footnote is a standard template.) Anyway, I am promoting this to GA - great work! eviolite (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dege31:: Placing on hold, see above. eviolite (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Dege31 (talk). Nominated by ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) at 17:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Note: I have fixed the attribution as Dege31 was the one who nominated and improved the article to GA. eviolite (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @ArsenalGhanaPartey: Interesting hook! Under "reviewed" is a link to Template:Did you know nominations. Which nomination did you review exactly for your QPQ? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina:, this is ArsenalGhanaPartey's first nomination so they are exempt from QPQ. eviolite (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eviolite: Oh. In that case, I'm passing the review. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting the main hook to Prep 5 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_North_Kosovo_crisis&oldid=1196887972"